Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 26 April 2010 (→‎User Varsovian: evaluation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:Abductive long term disruption

    abductive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This part of the discussion seems to be finished and we've moved on from it

    Abductive just showed up on something on my edit list and edit warred his way to a block. While it is his first block, I took a look and for an account that isn't even a year old he's had a major amount of disruption. An SPI was opened on him last year. It was closed without action. However, he did admit to using multiple accounts to mass nominate AfDs/prod articles. This created at least a couple AN/I threads and a substantial bit of disruption as most of these nominations were apparently bad. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Abductive/Archive. In regards to the socking, Abductive also has on his user page the claim that he's been here for over 3 years. One account was made last July, one last May. Which means there is quite likely at least one more account out there he didn't admit to using. Since he's using the current account disruptively, it is likely a disruptive sock. I don't know that I could file an SPI though since I don't have the foggiest who the other account might be.

    Issue two is the edit warring. He was just blocked for edit warring on Asian fetish. Making odd claims about how you can't name the author of a study unless he has an article himself. First claiming it was WP:UNDUE then claiming it was vanity, and then claiming I must have a COI because I wasn't buying his bizarre arguments, a bad faith assumption and insult, frankly. He was blocked for 31 hours, but after a quick check I found out that this isn't his first edit war. He was warned back in July of last year about edit warring. [1] and seemed to show a better understanding for how 3RR worked than someone who'd only been here a couple months and had never been warned about it before. Only a month ago he was involved in a big edit war on an article [2] which was stopped with page protection. He also engaged in an edit war back in October [3] and when he wasn't getting his way he again resorted to making personal attacks. This resulted in another page protection.

    So in less than a year, he's engaged in 3 or 4 edit wars, helped to get 2 pages locked, and disruptively mass nominated/prodded a ton of articles. With this behaviour and the claim about how long he's been on wikipedia I feel like this might be a returned blocked/banned user. At the least I feel he should be restricted to 1RR on any article given his propensity for edit warring, but I also think a greater look needs to be taken at the SP issues, unfortunately I don't think SPI would be remotely useful as I don't think it keeps year old IP data.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no comment as yet on the substance of the complaint, however, I find it odd that the block for edit warring came almost 7 hours after the last revert, though there is no question that the 3RR was violated. I think it might be an idea to have this conversation when Abductive is able to speak directly in his defence, but in fairness, you have notified him of the thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was reported to the 3RR noticeboard as is the normal process. The only reason his editing stopped was that I disengaged and have for now, let him have his way. I've also informed him that if he wants to make a statement it will be copied over. There is a history of edit warring and insults that goes well beyond the current situation.--Crossmr (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you evidence the history of edit warring and insults with multiple diffs please. Please can you explain why you do not appear to have addressed your concerns about socking with Abductive? Spartaz Humbug! 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is already there. Click through. If you'd like the exact diff where he insulted someone last time, [4]. That edit war was stopped by a page protection before it went completely out of hand you can see the full ANI discussion above. As for the SP issues, those were already raised with him and that was all he disclosed, but that doesn't seem to be honest given his claim on his userpage.--Crossmr (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first diff does not show a violation of the 3RR, the second appears to have been two reverts and the third also appears not to have been a 3RR violation. This out of a total of 12,000 edits in 18 months. I suggest you need something a little stronger then this and please can you show a diff where YOU addressed the sock allegation directly with Abductive before raising it here? I do agree that Abductive could do with improving their civility from time to time. Spartaz Humbug! 13:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Spartaz, though at least this editor's insult made me chuckle, which I always say "if your going to be uncivil at least make it funny" so I'd like to see him be a bit more creative if there's a next time. Is there any risk if Abductive is unblocked long enough so he can actually contribute to his defence here at AN/I? Yea, transcribing his responses over here isnt much of an ability to defend himself or contact others who may be able to help him in his defence, or directly confront his accusers in a meaningful way (and hopefully insult-free). Personally I say let him be and unblock him.Camelbinky (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no requirement that he be unblocked and AN/I has a long history of transcribing statements from blocked users if the need is there. Encouraging uncivil behaviour isn't exactly a compelling position.--Crossmr (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • May 2009-Now is not 18 months. That is 11 months. In that time, he's socked and been disruptive. he admitted that. I'm now pointing out that the extent of what he admitted to isn't the complete picture. I'm under no obligation to discuss it with him further when bringing it here as the part of a bigger package. The first diff shows he was warned about 3RR and seemed to show an understanding of it (without being linked to it) beyond what a user 2 months into editing wikipedia should show. Its evidence that this is probably not his first account. One doesn't need to violate 3RR to be edit warring. I never said he violated 3RR that many times just that he'd been involved in 3 or 4 edit wars, 2 of which resulted in page protection, and 2 of which resulted in him insulting other users when he couldn't get his way.
    • The first was in reference to this [5] where he was basically fighting with another editor to try and get some tag (any tag) onto the article. Which is similar to what happened now. He was trying to remove content for some reason, any reason and when it was apparent he didn't have consensus he just edit warred and insulted until blocked.
    • The second edit has 4. Edit warring isn't just reverting, it is undoing another person's edits. He has his first edit where he removed several entries that another user removed, that is 1, then he has 2 reverts, that is 3. Then he changes a bunch of stuff later on that wisdom power changed. That is 4 separate series of edits undoing other peoples work. If you really need a 3RR violation, there you go. [6], [7], [8], [9] 4 times undoing anothers work in less than 24 hours.
    • In the last one, he gets to 3 and the page is protected before it can go further. There was only 19 minutes between his last revert and the page locking. The other editor he was fighting with wasn't watching the page like a hawk and reverting immediately. He was obviously edit warring if the admin felt the need to protect the page.--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I deny these allegations. "Almost" violated 3RR? That means I didn't. With these other claimss, find me anybody with as many edits as I have who hasn't rubbed somebody the wrong way. As for the dispute that did get me blocked, it was pure 3RR, not a violation of WP:CIVIL, nor was it about the usual politics, religion, spam or ethnic stuff that graces ANI daily. User:Crossmr has a major WP:OWNERSHIP problem with the Asian fetish article, whereas I'm just trying to whip it into better shape. A thankless task--the article has been through 6 AfDs and has attracted some serious sockpuppeteers. Abductive (reasoning) 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just demonstrated where you violated 3RR last month. Do you deny undoing peoples edits those 4 times? Your contribs are a matter of public record. The first article didn't see you violate 3RR but you were edit warring to put "something" on the page, you just didn't know what but were editing it back and forth anyway instead properly considering what should go on the page or discussing it on the talk page. In the last one you only avoided a 3RR violation because the page was locked. Accusing someone of a COI without evidence is an assumption of bad faith and uncivil. The only ownership problem with the article is demonstratively you and hippo43 who have both been blocked for edit warring over it. You are too quick to push your version making sniping comments rather than engage in meaningful discussion. You seem to have zero concept of WP:BRD and would much rather fight over it than actually discuss it. You have a history of it that extends almost back to your account creation. Coupled with your admitted sock puppeting, your account has basically been disruptive for its entire history. You've also failed to comment on the account issues. Your user page claims you've been here over 3 years, both accounts you've had were only made last year. Are you still using another account?--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know nothing of his history so won't comment, but I fully support Abductive on the recent issue at Asian fetish, and I'm concerned by Crossmr's focus on the individual, not the issue. Crossmr has refused to discuss specific issues relating to content, aggressively and high-handedly reverted to his preferred version of a long-contentious article. Similarly he has referred to edit warring in my past (in this discussion and elsewhere) presumably trying to undermine me as a contributor, rather than deal directly with the content dispute, and has criticised me above without notifying me. If this all leads to wider scrutiny of this article, so much the better. --hippo43 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I categorically disagree with Hippo43's characterization of Crossmr's actions. Crossmr has been dispassionate and professional concerning his interaction with Abductive, who obviously has a history of disrupting other pages in unacceptable ways. And Crossmr has repeatedly (the requests would be approaching about 50 times or so by now) requested that both Hippo43 and Abductive give specific information to back up their claims and demands. They have not done that. And this is entertaining: "Crossmr has refused to discuss specific issues relating to content." Wow. That is simply not true. Please refer to the discussion page for the proof. In fact, both Crossmr and myself have repeatedly and extensively made efforts to discuss the issues in a democratic fashion on the discussion page. Crossmr's "focus on the individual" is of course related to the fact that Abductive has insisted pressing positions that frankly make little sense; Crossmr, to his credit, has kept his composure. In the end, both Hippo43 and Abductive have incessantly insisted that they have the right to completely change the makeup of a very controversial section that has represented the status quo for years. However, the burden to provide proof for the need for that change is imminent, and the burden belongs to them — not anyone else. The problem is that they cannot provide that proof. So because they will not simply acknowledge this and provide a lettered response concerning proof that has been requested, they just keep making the same statements that do not represent arguments, or content that makes their case, but only the vague pretense of such. And it wastes everyone's time in the process. Computer1200 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for clarification. You support someone edit warring to push their position? This thread is about abductive's behaviour that goes well beyond this particular article. If you want to discuss the particulars of the article feel free to go to the talk page. you'll see ample consensus seeking in all the various sections titled "proposal" all started by me.--Crossmr (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked abductive if he has anything further to add [10] but since he's continued editing (and warring on the article in addition to contributing to the consensus discussion) and hasn't responded I guess he doesn't. He clearly violated 3RR this time, he violated it last month. In october he got a page locked by his actions and last summer he was warned over fighting on a page. In addition to that he admitted socking last summer to mass nominate/prod articles (the vast majority of which didn't stand). For me, that's far too much disruption. In addition I've asked him directly about the account issues and he's carried on editing without commenting on that. If there is some legitimate reason for his changing accounts and not wanting to reveal the old one, that is fine, but the fact that one sock was already brought out of the drawer is a problem.--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to note that with regards to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive/Archive, that was a clear username change there. Secondly, that was a bad-faith SPI report made my serial sockpuppeteer User:Azviz, who was at the time harassing him and User:DreamGuy. –MuZemike 03:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't shoot the messenger. He still used more than one account to mass prod/nominate a ton of articles which didn't stick. Neither account goes beyond May 2009, so the account(s) that he's used between November 10, 2006 and May 2009 are unknown. We don't know if he's still using them or not since we don't know which ones they are(were). If there is a legitimate reason for him changing accoutns he's free to email an admin or arbcom and report the change and they could comment here and say it is fine. However, due to the initial disruptive behaviour and the continued disruptive behaviour it doesn't really seem like it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't trying to (and apologies if I felt like I was), but I wanted to make that clear that Abductive and DreamGuy were clearly being baited and harassed by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer during that time. As far as the other account is concerned, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive195#Wholesale deprodding by new account and [11] (the latter is repeated in that SPI case). –MuZemike 02:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    After debunking one of his bizarre claims in the current dispute [12] where he continually claimed there wasn't a single other article on wikipedia that included researcher's names, he's gone through to make a ton of pointy and WP:BATTLEGROUND edits. He's also shown absolutely zero understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD and continues to disrupt across multiple articles. I provided him with 2 google searches which showed tons of wikipedia articles using the phrase "study conduct/done by". His response was to run to those articles as fast as he could and remove as many mentions of that as he could. [13], [14], [15], [16], etc you can see his contrib history for today with a full list of all the articles he's tried to do this to. He knows there is no consensus for this change, I've asked him several times to cite a policy or guideline for it and he can't. Each time it is a new excuse as to why a researcher's name can't be on an article, but I think one tells us a lot. I have seen (and man, is it pathetic) junior professors post their mention in a Wikipedia article on their doors This would seem to indicate some personal interest/bias in the situation. [17] especially since he's utterly failed to properly cite any policy which says researchers names shouldn't appear in the article and they should only appear in the footnotes. He's reverted the Asian fetish article twice again today despite the on-going discussion to try and reach consensus on the article.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This your defense for making pointy battleground edits across multiple articles? You might want to look in the mirror. You have no consensus for your edits. You have been asked repeatedly to provide a policy or citation for your position and can't do it. You can't cite a single passage on wikipedia that says researchers shouldn't be named in articles and rather than discuss it you continue to edit war over it. As we can clearly see here [18], and [19]. What you're not getting is that your opinion isn't the only one and if you want to change the status quo, you need to gain consensus. You've been told to read WP:BRD but at this point I don't know if you're just not capable or what the problem is. You were bold, you were reverted. You should engage in discussion. Instead you continue to revert and push it on to may other articles knowing your opinion is opposed. This is further evidence of your on-going and long term disruptive behaviour. We're still waiting for you to explain what happened with your account between Nov 10, 2006 and now.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is how you characterize it. As I make edits to remove just the inline mentions of non-notable researchers who are already credited in the refs, you follow me around reverting me and say that I'm making a battleground? I don't have to engage in discussion with you on articles that aren't on your watchlist. As you yourself have demonstrated, if only ~2000 articles out of 3 million use the "in a study conducted by" language, then using such language is not the norm. I have already discovered that most such usage "in a study conducted by" is followed by "UNESCO", "an NGO" and so forth, not the names of non-notable scientists who most likely edited the pages themselves. Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes you are. You knew before you made those edits that your position was contested. You knew after I reverted 2 of them, that the position was contested. But you continued to make the edits and you continued to revert instead of enter discussion. You knew I was watching those 2 articles, because I reverted you. You ignored the community standard WP:BRD and continue to edit war your way across wikipedia to try and push your point of view. As I've already pointed out the absence of that sentence on an article doesn't prove the community disagrees with its usage. Your claim was no articles used it, you were wrong. Now in an attempt to correct that you're going to try and edit as many articles as you can to remove it. You've been asked to stop and discuss it and you've refused. This is your disruptive behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If mentioning the people who discovered a fact was used inline for every fact throughout Wikipedia, it would take me 3,262,608 x about 15 minutes per article, or 93 years of solid editing to remove them all. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again your failed logic. Absence of a piece of text in an article isn't proof of consensus from the community. Still waiting for that citation, or do you want to continue to try and distract rather than actually proving this mystical consensus you claim? Your claim was about naming researchers, not everyone who ever discovered a fact. You see, each time the story changes because you have nothing to support your position except your unending willingness to continue to edit war instead of discuss it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think so. Studies are by researchers, yet inline language in Wikipedia articles naming the researchers who conducted the studies is vanishingly rare, especially if the researchers don't have a Wikipedia article. By contrast, naming researchers in references is policy. This suggests consensus, perhaps unwritten or even unthinking, that one shouldn't give non-notable people so much "play" in articles. Abductive (reasoning) 06:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What policy? Please cite the policy that indicates researchers are only to be named in the footnotes. Still waiting. Another story change, we're going to need a play book here soon to keep up all the various lines you've tried to use to claim this shouldn't happen without actually providing a citation. Let's not forget that 3 of the 4 researchers you claimed were non-notable that started your latest disruptive edit warring over actually meet our notability requirements. You'd know if you'd have actually checked. I wonder how many others you've removed meet the guidelines or did you bother to check before removing their names?--Crossmr (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have told you many times, it's WP:UNDUE, in particular WP:UNDUE#Characterizing opinions of people's work. And you are characterizing my contructive edits to articles you only found by checking my contribs as disruptive and edit warring. You are completely mistaken about the notability of the researchers. Finally, I did not remove them from the article(s), just formatted them into refs (if they weren't already in the refs). Haven't you noticed that no admin has taken your side? Abductive (reasoning) 06:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as I've told you that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Have you actually read what you just linked to? Your claim was that policy stated they should be listed in the footnotes. Where is that in the text you've just linked to? It isn't there. Your second link has absolutely no bearing on this situation at all. it is talking about aesthetic opinion. You're not removing names that have anything to do with aesthetic opinion. But it shows how little you seem to understand the policy you're clinging to like a life-raft. You are removing the names of researchers who conducted research. Some of whom are notable. Like 3 from the article you got blocked for edit warring over. And [20] why don't you check out Flávio Henrique Caetano you'll find plenty of google news, books and scholar hits for him. Its unfortunately not english, and I don't know how common that name is but it comes up enough to be at least worth checking out. Especially before claiming he isn't notable.--Crossmr (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • and here he is finally admitting he has no consensus for his actions [21]. If he had the consensus he claimed he did, he'd know where it is and wouldn't need to look for it. He's basically been making up argument after argument on things that have no real relationship to the issues and edit warring on multiple articles over it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crossmr is the one making things up. I have been repeating the same argument, using different words, a variety of statistics, examples and links, in a vain attempt to get this user to see my point of view. As can be seen, of the four people arguing on the talk page, 2 hold one position and 2 hold another. Everything else is just Wikihounding and tenditious editing on Crossmr's part. Abductive (reasoning) 07:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't what you just claimed was it? Everyone can see your edit. Or do you want to continue to try and lie? To tell the truth, I have not looked for a proper "citation" for the consensus I claim, what part of that is made up? Still waiting on the name of the other accounts by the way. Your argument has been all over the place. You've refused to gain consensus and even after being blocked you continued to try and push your way on the article without consensus. Please enlighten us to what the passage on aesthetic opinions on creative works of art has to do with researchers names being in the article in conjunction with the studies they've produced. The tendentious editing comes from your unwillingness to see a discussion to the end before trying to force your opinion onto multiple articles by edit warring and even when you participate in a discussion to provide evidence to support your position. You just admitted you didn't look for the proper source which basically means you don't want to or can't provide it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I previously stated, the consensus is in the form of millions of articles that do not give prominence to individual researchers, but instead use the established reference formats. I stated that this consensus is unwritten, but that does not mean it isn't the consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No you clearly stated you didn't look for the consensus. studies aren't used in millions of articles on wikipedia so it would be unreasonable to expect them to give prominence to things they don't use. Unless you've actually got evidence of mass removal of these kinds of sentences unchallenged or with discussions showing consensus agreed with their removal, you have no consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. you didn't look because it doesn't exist. Your juggling on the Asian Fetish talk page is plenty evidence of that. You're concocting the most elaborate and asinine arguments I've ever seen. Citing completely unrelated polices and guidelines coupled with what almost appears to be intentional misunderstanding of them to try and support your arguments rather than cite the consensus you claim you have.--Crossmr (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When you two are done, any concise diffs or condensed explanations might be more useful than the above. Are there perhaps a few places we could focus on? Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it is worth User:Abductive previously edited as User:Joey the Mango. He put some strange comments on my talk page but I can't say that I found them objectionable enough to complain about. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Concise diffs

    • Last summer it was noted that Abductive used multiple accounts to mass-prod a bunch of articles Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive196#Wikihounding, by bunch over 150. They were all contested. AN/I shot the messenger because he was a sock, but it doesn't change what abductive did. Disruptive socking. At that time it was also noted that he refused to disclose old accounts and if you follow this discussion he ducks the question every time, but his user page indicates he's been here 2.5 years longer than his account.
    • Around the same time, he got in a dispute with an editor here [22]. Not a 3RR violation, but he was going back and forth without discussion.
    • In october 2009 he was involved in another edit war that was stopped with page protection before he could technically violate 3RR Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Abductive_Uncalled_for_Behavior [23] It was also noted he was uncivil making a personal attack.
    • Last month in March he violated 3RR [24], [25], [26], [27] the page was locked shortly there after. His violation was missed.
    • just recently he was blocked on Asian fetish for violating 3RR. After being unblocked he made a contribution to the consensus building discussion we were having [28], but followed that up with trying to push his version back into the article [29] [30] twice. Before being blocked he insinuated with evidence that I had some kind of COI when he wasn't getting his way [31]. this was an assumption of bad faith and I consider it a personal attack.
    • During the discussion he brought up the point that there were no articles which had researchers names in them with the study. I provided a couple google links showing plenty, his response was to start making disputed, WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND edits to multiple articles. [32], [33], [34]. See contribs, he's done this to 7 or 8 articles. He knew his position was disputed but reverted any opposition and carried on with other articles.
    • After I reverted a couple of this indicating there was no consensus to remove these names, he accused me of wikihounding and reverted again. Ignorinig WP:BRD. [35], [36].
    • He's repeatedly claimed consensus yet each time he's asked for it he refuses to provide the link because he doesn't want to look for it [37] or claims I'll just wikilawyer it.
    • Knowing that there is no consensus for his assertion and that it is disputed and still failing to provided evidence of his consensus he just tried to push it on a featured article [38]. Basically anything that gets mentioned as support he will try to edit out.
    • While a discussion is on-going on one page that shows that users don't support his POV [39], he uses mis-leading edit summaries on other articles to push it [40].

    Maybe a few more shortly.--Crossmr (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also note that his edit war last month, this month and his pointy and battleground edits all seem to center around academics he thinks are not notable. Couple with his statement here about "juniour professors" [41]. It would seem like its a hot button issue for him.--Crossmr (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick point to Abductive about "consensus" regarding the names of authors; look at Court of Chancery. That's an FA; one of our highest-quality articles. That's an article which has been peer reviewed, and the idea that it is high-quality and does not violate policy has reached consensus. You'll notice authors' names are mentioned when they've opined. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that your behaviour is at ANI and the (admittedly small) consensus at the talkpage says you're wrong may make you want to think twice about your quote unquote "sound" reasons. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned above, judging some form of WP natural law from statistics doesn't work. And no, I'm pretty much the same all the time. Again, have you considered that since nobody is agreeing with you, you might be wrong? Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before User:Crossmr went on his fishing expedition, the talk page was tied 2:2, with Hippo43 taking the same position as I did. Also, if you look through the article history of Asian fetish, Hippo43 has been struggling with many POV editors and socks, alongside Crossmr. Questions were raised about the appropriateness of including a study of racial preferences in dating in an article on sexual fetishization of Asian women, concerns which Crossmr shouts down. The treatment of this study has been given steadily more prominence in the article, to the point that it is the majority of the text, and that's when I started to try to trim it back a bit, per WP:UNDUE. This issue revolves around WP:UNDUE. I say that using the names of researchers inline lends a certain weight to the statement that may or may not be justified. In spite of the fact that WP:OWN is a policy, many people own articles and cannot see that there may be legitmate concerns. Abductive (reasoning) 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fishing expedition which is showing you don't have the consensus you claimed you did and refuse to cite? The issue revolves around what appears to be your personal bias. Your two latest edit wars, your combative edits this time around, your casual comment about juniour professors on the talk page all show some kind of contempt for academics you don't deem worthy. Even knowing there was opposition to your position you just went and tried to change a featured article to push your point of view. you've been trying to dance around this for awhile now and providing all kinds of ludicrous and borderline disruptive answers as part of your reasoning. Claiming that you can't find a certain sentence pattern in some required imaginary number of articles as consensus that it shouldn't exist in any article is akin to saying your position is right because you're wearing blue pants. Your latest argument centered around the fact that somehow a notability guideline for article creation meant that we couldn't name a studies author in the article text. Naming the authors and/or universities involved in a study has absolutely nothing to do with WP:UNDUE and everything to do with presenting a clear picture to the reader.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As further evidence of your doing whatever you want regardless of what other users say: [42] after two users explained to you that it is perfectly normal and correct to identify who it is that is making statements, claims, etc and that it is not a problem with WP:WEASEL, you went and gutted one article changing several statements from being attributed to a particular person or sources point of view to blanket facts. [43]. While he did remove a couple "some people say" kind of references, the vast majority of the ones he removed were named sources. He's basically providing false edit summaries. Claiming to be removing "according to's" per WEASEL, when in fact WEASEL only says you should remove the ones that are unattributed and unclear. Named sources don't fall under that.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A few thoughts about the diffs above. I don't have a stake in this issue nor do I want to engage in a blow-by-blow regarding the below. I'll make a few specific points though. The two ANI's up there don't bother me. In fact, aside from an isolated uncivil comment (it really wasn't that uncivil either), they're entirely appropriate. It's not 3RR to keep removing vandalism or spam. Similarly the List of University of Toronto people edits are essentially an IP (that changes) attempting to add inappropriate redlinks to a list page, something that had previously been discussed a lot by Abductive and others on the Talk page. In that case he RVed 2 times, then sent the IP to the page. I don't see why that's a problem. Similarly, the "mass prodding" was to a whole set of address pages that a sock puppet account then had issue with. I don't think anyone else called it disruptive.
    The James R. Davila stuff is a little pushy, and should have been discussed somewhere other than in edit summaries. The proper move would have been for Abductive to have undone Avraham's RV with a note to go to the talk page. If Avraham continued to remove it after that, then take appropriate action. Neither of those are model behavior, but nor are either of those fatal. That incident was almost a year ago too.
    What is inappropriate are the edits that got him blocked, and the similar ones removing researcher names. I agree with Ironholds on some of those details, but that's not the point of discussion here. There is a tendency to be a little pointy about some of these recent edits. My conclusion is that there are some legitimate complaints regarding this recent trend (especially in the 3R situation, which after the first change was explained there was ongoing discussion), but Crossmr's claims regarding the past edits are either without merit, or minor problems.
    I think Abductive should cool down on these "Professor X says..." edits for a while. If they're going to be made across a bunch of articles, there should be a central debate about it somewhere. As for the SPI stuff, you should put that over at SPI and leave this other stuff out of it (or else I pity the clerk who has to wade through all of that). Shadowjams (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a couple notes, the admin who protected the page last October specifically said "but also got carried away in his response to reinsertions of the kind that got the article deleted in the first place". The reinsertions might not have been appropriate but the admin felt that Abductive got carried away anyway. This is more about his response to challenges to his editing. At the toronto article only the first 2 edits were explicitly over redlinks with the IP, the next two were reverts of Wisdompower. To me it shows that he doesn't handle opposition to his POV well, which is what is happening again now. While I don't find those two events to be huge problems, I just find them to be indicative of a on-going trend that with this account.--Crossmr (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the WP:TLDR award goes to... You guys! Serioisly, have you noticed that everyone else seems to have tuned out a while back here? Dare I suggest you do the same and just try to avoid one another for a while... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Beeblebrox is right but so are you. The frustration here though is that the disagreements appear to be largely personal. It's not long til someone says "this isn't an administrator issue", which is mostly true at this point. We'd all appreciate any remaining issues be boiled down to some core contingency and those be funneled to the right place.
    Look, you're both good editors, but even the best of us make mistakes from time to time. The question is if Abductive, takes this to heart, and similarly if Crossmr does too. This isn't blame... and someone else may still do something about it too. But notwithstanding that, I'd hope you both try to discuss things a little bit more. You two know enough to be incredibly productive, or incredibly disruptive. Not that I think either of you are doing the latter, but you know the game, so please understand that if the rules are applied somewhat more rigorously to this issue, it's because of that. Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing personal here. I've rarely ever edited the same article as abductive [44]. 1 of those few articles we've both edited was like 4 years apart. I brought this here because I saw an editor who repeatedly edited against consensus, and refused to properly discuss issues before hitting the revert button. Since I brought this here you've seen him continue the disputed edits knowing they're disputed and even doing so on a FA. You've suggested he should cut that out unless he's going to start a central discussion to get consensus on it. Continually pushing POV without properly seeking consensus when you know your edits are disputed is an administrator issue. It is why I brought it here. If he's going to cut that out and engage in proper consensus building discussions and adhere to WP:BRD I've got no issues dropping it. But if he's going to just blindly revert any opposition to his POV we're just going to be back here tomorrow.--Crossmr (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for administrative actions

    Which as I expected brings us right back here. Yet again Abductive is doing whatever he wants regardless of who speaks out against him [45]. As I pointed out yesterday Abductive ignored the opinions of experienced editors and used misleading edit summaries to change another article. After an IP (which he assumed was me and was wrong, reverted him for legitimate reasons) instead of WP:BRD he just reverted and made bad faith accusations. The blind reversion and bad faith accusations need to stop.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shadowjams suggested above that these edits were not a good idea and that he should stop until a central discussion was held on the issue. After trying to push the change on an FA, he was told there was no problem with the researchers name being inline by two different editors.[46], [47]. It is clear Abductive has no consensus to make these changes. So he went off to several other articles and made those changes.

    • [48] Here he claims to be removing entries per WEASEL, but WEASEL addresses using words like "according to some" he only removed 2 of those and removed 4 instances where those statements were attributed to individuals. This was just explained to him that it was okay and that he shouldn't make these edits
    • [49] he does it again
    • [50] and a third one here
    • An IP (which he assumes bad faith and assumes its me, feel free to run a CU) comes along and reverts him with explanation. [51], [52], [53], [54]
    • Ignoring WP:BRD Abductive continues his WP:BATTLEGROUND edits, assumes bad faith and insinuates the IP is me, threatens the IP on his talk page for reverting him, and then reverts all of the articles. [55], [56], [57] [58]

    I said I'd let it drop if was willing to edit inline with policies and guidelines but its apparent he isn't. So far, he's violated:

    This has to stop.--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your edits are right there where you accuse him of wikihounding you and threaten him on the talk page. Are you telling us you didn't make those edits? Was someone else using your account? Another lost password? How about the fact that you went out and made those first edits in the face of growing opposition to your point of view which you still can't cite a consensus on? You're right people should read your edits, because it is clear as day that you have no regard for other people's point of view and feel entitled to revert any page to your preferred version regardless of discussion and in violation of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. While there was only small connected evidence before this began, you've shown since its started that you zero regard for any kind of opposition to your POV.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I decided to remove instances of "not uncommon" from every article it which the phrase appeared, would that be a blockable offence? No, because the phrase fits WP:WEASEL. Similarly, removing a few instances of "according to" is both a minor change and consistent with the MoS. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were just told by multiple editors not to remove that and that it was not consistent with MoS. Removing according tos, when they're attached to words like "some people" or "some academics" is appropriate. Removing according tos when they're attached to "John Smith" or "Professor X" are not appropriate. It is clear attribution of an opinion. This was explained to you. You ignored repeatedly. Which is why we are here and people are supporting your block.--Crossmr (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, those edits predate Shadowjams suggestion at 23:29, 20 April 2010 that I "cool it" with those sorts of edits. If people take a look at the edits, and the edits summaries, I think some will not see any problems at all. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your reversions of the IP who disagreed with you do not predate that suggestion. They also don't predate being told on the talk page of the FA that the names are appropriate [59]. Nor does it excuse you using misleading edit summaries to cover up the changes you make.--Crossmr (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editing an article once doesn't give you license to revert any opposition to your edits. That is specifically spelled out on WP:BRD (which has to be well over a dozen times I've linked you to it which you seem to have great issue reading). You were bold, you were reverted, and instead of discussing it you reverted again with bad faith assumptions and accusations. You were also bold at a time where there was not. WP:WEASEL specifically addresses removal of "according tos" that don't go to a specific source, you removed 4 such entries that did go to specific sources. That is a misleading edit summary.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In each of the follow-on edits I made, I carefully considered what the IP said, and made new edits that were either different from the first, or explained why I felt I was correct. At present, are any of the articles worse than when I started? Abductive (reasoning) 05:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2 of the 4 were blind reverts were you accused him of wikihounding then threatened him on his talk page. None of the removals were appropriate at that point because multiple editors had said it was inappropriate. The status of the articles is immaterial because you clearly knew these kinds of edits were disputed but you persisted in pushing your point of view without having the discussion that was recommended to you.--Crossmr (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said the other 2 were okay. At that point it was still suggested you stop making those edits. Its only in 2 of them you made direct bad faith accusations and blindly reverted the articles. The other two you still removed the names without consensus. When you reverted those articles Shadowjams had recommended you stop and 2 editors on the FA had told you that the names were appropriate. You had no support for your edits yet pushed away.--Crossmr (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. The edits were consistent with the Manual of Style, and 2 or 4 edits hardly constitutes any kind of mass action. Again, I note that the articles are better now than they were before. This is how editing gets done on Wikipedia; there may be some opposition, but given that the IP hasn't complained or reverted, perhaps s/he doesn't perceive a problem. Abductive (reasoning) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they weren't. You were told that already. you were told to stop making them. The IP could just be busy and hasn't come back to the article. Their absence isn't evidence that they support you. I know you like to use that a lot as argument, but it doesn't fly. The problem is you ignore other users, and revert pages rather than discuss. It is what got you blocked before, and the exact behaviour you've continuing since then. You've intentionally gone to articles and made edits you know were disputed. I haven't reverted all of them yet because I'm waiting for a clear consensus which is starting to form. If you want to continue these edits you need to make a proposal at the village pump that they should be removed and see how the community feels. Everything else disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know what? I think that you need to get the last word in. You and I repeat the same arguments over and over, with you making sweeping statements about consensus forming, when in fact the general consensus is that this is not important. It is an editing dispute, with some people even agreeing with me. Abductive (reasoning) 05:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I refused correctly. There is a difference between sockpuppeting and legit alternate accounts, and there is no problem at all if the accounts don't overlap in time and articles. I tell you what, though; if you can guess any of my alternate accounts, I'll admit them. You can have 1000 guesses, just ask at my talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 04:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would anyone know since you won't disclose it? I'm certainly not going to take your word on it at this point. The very least you can do is e-mail the list to arbcom.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll tell the truth. After all, if in the future any admin or member of arbcom ever did take an interest in this non-issue, my lying would be perceived quite negatively. So, if there is any account that has ever aroused your suspicion, just ask on my talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 05:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to come clean with your past accounts you can do so here or you can e-mail the list to arbcom. No reason to tuck it away on your talk page. Last year you claimed that they would only show more of the same (Which tells us a lot) but that there wasn't anything untoward, so why not just list them unless you got blocks or bans to hide?--Crossmr (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opposed. Who said academics can't have fetishes? Seriously, this seems a pretty wp:lame conflict, people should just back off from gouging each others eye's over stuff like this. I don't see significant issues with Abductive's latest incriminated edit [60]. Removing some verbiage is always good. It makes sense to repeatedly use "According to ..." only if the statements are contentious, and some alternative interpretation is provided, like "According to X, A1 happened, but according to Y, A2 happened." Just repeatedly using "According to X", where X is not even the same across occurrences, and the there are no disputed issues, just induces the impression that there may be a different interpretation when none is provided, so it should be a construct to wp:avoid just like "claims". Pcap ping 00:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except he's been told by multiple users he shouldn't do it without getting consensus first. There are multiple problems here. 1) that he's making WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT edits he knows are currently disputed and 2) any reversion of those edits is met with assumptions of bad faith and reversions rather than discussions per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. it was suggested above that he not continue these edits without a central discussion on it, and after he tried to push it on an FA he was told by 2 users there that there was no problem with the edits. Someone ignoring consensus and edit warring their pov into an article isn't lame. It's a problem. The problem at Hephthalite was several, 1) disputed edit, 2) misleading edit summary, 3) assumption of bad faith, 4) consensus and BRD. He managed 4 violations in 2 edits. and we already know that Abductive is removing this names not because the claims aren't disputed but because he feels these individuals are "non-notable" academics, and that naming them is some kind of vanity, spam, or whatever other story he's concocted today.--Crossmr (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listen carefully; there is opposition to your moving names down to the references from in-line. You were told to stop it, both here and on article talk pages. You continued. More people opposed you. You reverted and made bad faith accusations. You are being disruptive, see no problem with your edits, and have no regard for consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I disagree. The consensus you claim is actually people wishing that this ANI discussion would die out, or people who came quite late to this discussion and clearly are mislead by you. Earlier, Ironholds, one other user and I had a discussion on a talk page, with results amenable to all. An IP and you are the only ones intrested in following my contribs and finding fault, and I made an effort to take everybody's concerns into account, and the IP has not edited the articles further. Are you saying that I cannot edit? Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the consensus I claim is Shadowjam who told you to get consensus, ironholds and the other person on the FA talk page, the IP, and even Radman above specifically states that you should have gone to the village pump to get consensus first, as well as a second IP. If you made an effort to take everyone's concerns into account, you wouldn't have run out to change every article that was provided as evidence to dispute your false claims. You're free to edit, but you shouldn't be moving researchers names out of the inline text until you have consensus to do so. Several users have told you that. You've ignored it repeatedly and made bad faith accusations and ignored WP:BRD to push your point of view.--Crossmr (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, you make sweeping claims that I changed "every article", was going to remove "all" of something, and that I am reverting when the edits are not reversions, and that I am not following suggestions when in fact I am. I'm also engaging in normal editing practices to the best of my ability. Go ahead, put in the last word. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crossmr, I don't see a good reason to invoke the source of some science in text by default. You haven't provided any. Just because you and some other editors disagree with Abductive on this issue, it doesn't make you (or them) any holier than him. I do use similar constructs occasionally, but when I have a good reason to do so. For instance, I used something like that in the capacitor plague article "The failed capacitors analyzed by two University of Maryland researchers..." to emphasize that the guys that did the analysis are reasonably independent of the hardware manufacturers. Another case is when someone pioneers a new technique etc. But in general, I don't see a reason to give the names in text for routine science, especially when they don't have wikibios here. Can you argue for one? Pcap ping 09:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holier no, but knowingly going out and repeatedly making edits you know are disputed is disruptive. Especially when counselled to start a consensus discussion. It is completely contrary to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Individual articles have to be addressed individually, but anyone who has disagreed with his edits finds their work undone. This is the problem. Other than the featured article, every other article has him constantly putting his preferred version, without names back in. He probably knows that edit warring on a featured article would get him far more attention than some fringe article so that is why its the only one he chose not to to instantly undo the opposition to his edits. You have to remember the whole reason this started was because of his false claim in defense of his edits on Asan fetish was that no article on wikipedia had this language in it. As soon as he was confronted with a list of tons of them, he started changing them.--Crossmr (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The more I see the more its clear there is some personal bias against academics he thinks are non-notable and is out to remove every mention of them from wikipedia regardless of how others feel.--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, this characterization is untrue. User:Crossmr uses the word scare word "remove" to describe either my desire to see the names of researchers mentioned in footnotes rather than given undue prominence, or a legitimate process called AfD. Seizing upon an AfD nomination I made when I was rusty upon returning to editing, he makes sweeping, untrue claims. Abductive (reasoning) 15:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Ramsay Shaw was an interesting if unfunny read, but that was almost a year ago. Towards the end of that Abductive gave the impression he learned something from that AfD. Are you suggesting that Abductive has some hidden agenda to diminish the presence of academics on Wikipedia by removing "According to ..." verbiage? I see Crossmsr thinks so, but I want to hear it from you. Pcap ping 01:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it was a year go. Hence why I titled this long term disruption. Older incidents are quite relevant because it shows that this is an on-going problem which shows no real indication of changing. He gave the impression he learned something, but obviously he didn't. All his edit summaries belie his intent. Instead of indication that he's trying to improve the articles he's telling us he's removing their names from the inline text because they're "non-notable" he was nominating academics without properly checking them. He was referring to Fisman and Iyengar as non-notable academics at Asian Fetish when a quick Gnews/Books/Scholar check shows they meet WP:PROF and their inclusion in the article as "vanity" or "stealth spam" [61], coupled with that statement and the fact that He's twice violated 3RR fighting over what he considers non-notable academics it paints a very clear picture.--Crossmr (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was asking Xxanthippe. Twice violated 3RR? What was the second time? And referring to an AfD that occurred a year ago is plainly ridiculous. I have nominated dozens of articles for deletion since then, partipated in over 1000 AfDs, and have prevailed in quite a few. Crossmr continues to cherry-pick, characterizing my normal editing behavior, and a few mistakes, as evidence of some sort of plot to ruin Wikipedia. In fact, none of my actions are particularly unusual, and all are attempts on my part to improve the encylopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 01:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A month ago, look up, its already been linked to twice. Last month in March he violated 3RR [24], [25], [26], [27] the page was locked shortly there after. His violation was missed. You undid another editors work 4 times in 24 hours. It got lost in the shuffle of all of the edit warring that was going on there. I don't need to cherry pick anything. I just simply need to point out the times you were opposed and how you reacted to it. A year ago is perfectly relevant since the point being made is long-term disruption. That would require old incidents too. Which really aren't that old since you apparently started editing 2.5 years before that but refuse to name your previous accounts.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undoing another user's edits 4 times in 24 hours is a 3RR violation, it doesn't matter if its a named account or an IP. unless those edits are one of the few excepted edits (blatant vandalism, copyvios, etc) then it counts. Opposing Abductive's point of view isn't one of the excepted edits. Can you demonstrate that any of the things you removed and undid was an excepted edit under WP:3RR? And if you don't refuse to name your previous accounts, then put the list right here. So unless you can show how some of the things you removed met those requirements or are willing to put the list of accounts here the characterization is apt.--Crossmr (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that what turned out to be one other user was editing against the talk page consensus on an article with BLP issues, I don't think that 3RR applies. Nobody but you cares about the non-issue of my prior accounts, and my offer still stands for you to guess at them. Abductive (reasoning) 16:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask why this user is still, after this much disruption, a rollbacker. I do not feel that any user who has engaged in disruptive editing should possess this tool, and would support revoking rollback rights and then possibly blocking. Immunize (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good question and might be the subject of a secondary proposal.--Crossmr (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry champ, that isn't one of the excepted edits you get to go over 3RR for. 3RR isn't for content disputes, and if you think it is then it tells us you really haven't learned anything from this or prior situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the prior accounts are an issue since concerns are being raised about them, and I think Abductive is showing a long term pattern of non-collegial editing, and ongoing wikilawyering (I haven't checked if that's also a long term pattern). Abductive, have you disclosed your past accounts to arbcom-l and/or are you willing to do so? While the sock policy doesn't formally require that, it is strongly recommended there, and if you won't do it, I think that diminishes the amount of AGF that should be extended to you in this discussion. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opposed There are issues and then there is wrongdoing within this thread. Trumped up charges should always be avoided as they are a means by which one side tries to unfairly tilt the playing field to possibly get a biased judgment. Wikipedia always looks forward and rarely goes back and corrects past mistakes in judgment. Secondly, what exactly is an "administrative action"? Are you seeking a topic ban? That sounds like a major action. Has either party attempted to resolve differences either informally or formally? While there are issues here to be sorted out the approach throws up caution flags.--scuro (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can show where I said anythig false feel free to do so. Otherwise, you can retract your statement. I've provided links for all of his editing and what he has done. This isn't a content dispute. This is an editor who ignores consensus, fails to abide by the varous policies and guidelines he's required to and undoes any opoposition to his point of view. This goes across many articles and topics. While it is mainly confined to one topic, he's edit warred over other things as well. There is nothing he and I can do privately since it isn't a personal issue between us. Administrator action is whatever is required to get him to stop, gain consensus and edit in a manner conducive to running a community when his edits are opposed. He apparently needs that since one of his arguments on Asian fetish was "Since an administrator hasn't blocked me or done anything else, I must be right"--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Abductive has claimed exaggeration of your complaint, that user should speak to this issue. I do not buy the notion that there is "nothing he and I can do". Attempts on your part to earnestly resolve differences on his talk page should be the very first approach taken even if this exercise looks to be totally futile. This is a condition required pre-arbitration. Formal reconciliation mechanisms should have also been attempted. Are there several editors who who are in complete agreement with your observations? If so they could be used to initiate other procedures. Are you seeking a total ban from Wikipedia? While that in the end might be the end result ...explain to me why all the traditional remedies and procedures are not required in this case. While a contributor may be behaving poorly, the normal sanction process gives contributors the opportunity and time to permanently self-correct behaivour before serious sanctions are required.--scuro (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Per User:Pohta ce-am pohtit, who notes that inline attribution suggests "that there may be a different interpretation when none is provided" ; having sources' names in the citation, not inline, is the norm. This looks pretty lame. I think both Crossmr and Abductive should just try to avoid each other.John Z (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal of User:John Z is not helpful as it, in effect, warns User:Crossmr off these topics and leaves Abductive free to edit with impunity. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Um, there's no "norm"--heck, in Harvard referencing, the cited author's name is necessarily inline, and it is a perfectly acceptable style on wikipedia. Edit warring over a choice like that completely inappropriate. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about a content dispute. Its about an editor who constantly edit wars with multiple editors across multiple articles and topics and when provided evidence that his point of view isn't supported on other articles he rushes over to change them, including featured articles. The rightness or wrongness of researchers names appearing inline is completely immaterial to this editor's behaviour. The problem was him claiming false consensus and undoing anyone's opposition to his point of view.--Crossmr (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose a blanket block - I assume the only block proposals are for perma-blocks, which I would not support. If there's some more nuanced alternative, I would reevaluate (which doesn't mean I'd necessarily support). Also relevant: have any controversial edits continued despite discussion? Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for adminstrative intervention, whatever they deemed necessary to slow him down and get him to actually discuss the opposition to his edits rather than just undo people's opposition over and over with bad faith assumptions. And yes, as I pointed out above, after 2 editors disagreed with him on the FA, he went out and changed 4 more articles. When he was reverted on that, he reverted again instead of following WP:BRD and actually discussing it, meanwhile assuming bad faith on the reverters intentions by accusing him of wikihounding and threatening him with a block for doing so. As you can see here he's shown no appreciation nor understanding of what the problem is. He hasn't made any disputed edits in a day, but as more attention is being paid to the issue, his level of WP:BATTLEGROUND edits has dropped. What happens if the thread goes off AN/I? Who knows. But since he's shown no acception nor understanding I doubt anything is going to change. Immunize suggested rollback rights be removed above. Perhaps a more concrete proposal is in order.--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • At minimum, formally restrict to one account unless user agrees to inform arbcom of all aliases and does so (in which case we should ask an arb to spot check the other accounts). User is either operating multiple disruptive accounts and avoiding scrutiny by concealing the connection between them, or is operating a combination of disruptive and non-disruptive accounts, a good-hand/bad-hand situation that is also a misuse of alternates. The only way to legitimately use multiple accounts is to keep all of them completely free of any hint of misconduct. That hasn't happened here. I'm sympathetic to the block proposal but don't want to pile onto it without burning more time examining Crossmr's diffs than I feel like doing. Abductive's aggressive style if done for long enough (even at a low level) constitutes battleground editing calling for use of attitude adjustment tools if it doesn't change. Probation or a suitable editing restriction might be good. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you have evidence of that, then file a WP:SPI, Mr. Anonymous. Pcap ping 14:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • He was asked by adminstrators to do so and danced around the issue. Given his behaviour here and the fact that he continually refuses to name his other accounts, even in a private e-mail to arbcom, it's an issue. If he is restricting himself to one account right now, SPI wouldn't do anything, and SPI data isn't kept a year old to find out if he's hiding previous bad accounts. I find it interesting that you'd take issue with someone expressing an opinion via an IP, but not with someone ignoring wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct

    Draganparis (talk · contribs)

    For weeks now, user Draganparis makes constant accusations and slanders certain users he deems as his archenemies in Wikipedia. In the course of a few months he was banned once for disruptive editing and once for sockpuppetry and has 3 confirmed socks. Two of them were discovered after my complaint and were confirmed here [62]. Since then, he has been roaming Macedonia related pages intentionally and blatantly slandering my name and this of other editors. He also initiated a sockpuppetry case against user Athenian, accusing me and two other editors of being his puppets, which produced unconfirmed results only. It proved that 3 of us operate from northern Greece, but that was all [63]. Since then, user Draganparis is constantly making improper and slandering comments in a personal battle against me and other users making customized "technical notes", posting them around and threatening people (even admins!!!!) not to remove them!!!

    Evidence:
    [64],
    [65]
    [66],
    [67]
    Here he is warning another user to not remove his "technical note"...[68]
    Here he is warning an admin to not remove his "technical note"...[69]
    Here I warn him to stop propagating slanders... [70]
    He of course goes on... [71]
    ..and on.. [72]
    ..and on.. [73]

    ...

    Anybody who will look into this matter will easily see that throughout this time, I tried to refrain from discussion with user Draganparis and most if not all of his comments were made in irrelevant instances and with me (and the other users he mentions) absent from the discussion. This clearly shows his intention to slander. It will be very interesting for any admin to occupy himself with this case to look into the edits of all concerned editors, mine, Draganparis' as well as any other's Draganparis constantly abuses. Since day 1, he has not made A SINGLE constructive edit in any article. He is a man of single purpose and is only active in discussions to disrupt and propagate his personal beliefs. I could go on and on about how he has behaved to other editors and admins, but in this complaint, I only refer to his conduct towards me in the last weeks.

    Please, look into this matter and rule out something... GK (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a heap of irritating disruption in that long message of his, and I agree it does not belong on a talk page. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has removed it three times now - and since April 9 it has not come back. It's a bit late to leave him warnings about that unless he does it again. I have notified the editor for you. --SGGH ping! 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, my informing the community that we "might" have kind of collaborative editing is not accusatory. I think it is now well known, and if there is no collaboration, there is certainly a need to reduce edits of bare support of the opinions of the other editors from the "group" and STOP permanently insulting the opposing editors. Producing evidence (this is a history page!) is needed instead. I would appreciate if the Administrator would inform the mentioned "group" about the rules of decency on Wikipedia.Draganparis (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, here you have it... He "informs" the community that some users "might" have some kind of collaborative editing... And then he again talks about the mentioned "group" which "might" exist and "might" collaborate and "might" be socks as he propagates... I think that user Draganparis' words here clearly show the extent of his misconduct... He propagates his suspicions, no matter where or why and blatantly attacks me and other users. He does not seem to understand that accusing somebody once, during a heated discussion, of something that according to his opinion "might" be true is not the same thing as continuously and methodically propagate such accusations. GK (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's look at what Draganparis considers a "discovery":
    ATTENTION: The user GK1973 changed his name to GK. (May be to hide his being GK1973 and a "member" of the group that I call "Greek neighbors".)Draganparis (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
    Someone please link "conspiracy theorist" and "there is no cabal" stuff...
    Seriously though, it's not only that he accused some editors of being socks, he got his investigation which didn't prove his accusation, but then he goes on to keep insisting that the investigation was wrong and he is still right and he no less than SPAMS the same thing over and over and OVER again. This is not proper behaviour and I wonder why admins have not blocked him again. It's not like he was a perfect example so far, he's been blocked for trolling and sock-puppeting already! And he disputes those investigations too and claims we blocked him and not uninvolved admins. He slanders YOU too! Instead of focusing on borderline cases of unproven incivility (my pet peeve), how about you do something about a clear cut case such as this? Simanos (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is rather surprising that this is still going for months. Inaction can cause trivialities to grow into real problems. Then again, admin involvement is a thankless task, when there is a real or perceived ethnic dispute (here it is only perceived as such by one user).
    • For instance, I have no dispute with Draganparis, and not the slightest knowledge of his edits concerning Cyril and Methodius (I had only filed his first confirmed SPI case in January [74] ; then, nothing more, zero interaction, despite being called a nazi on that case page [75] etc). His latest posts only came to my attention now, because I was inactive since March, being busy IRL, and therefore not willing to address any kind of provocations, or sloppy actions (see below). Nevertheless, it is disappointing that I come to discover my username continuously and repeatedly included, with no justification whatsoever, in a series of "warnings" or "notices" posted all over the place (from what I gather, in irrelevant pages) about belonging to some conspiracy or group or whatever entity of users (no matter who those users are). In fact, such posts in article talk pages, and unconcerned third user pages, would be disruptive, under any circumstances, even if they had been proved to be true. Even more so, when there is no basis for them, as is the case here.
    • Moreover, let me add, that the SPI case mentioned [76] (against Athenean, myself et al.) was opened and closed in a much too hasty, even sloppy way. And to make it clearer: 1. there was no behavioral evidence justifying a checkuser privacy intrusion; 2. the conclusion as presented is unhelpful (and probably the investigation was too shallow; for example, I had been travelling a lot those days/weeks that there could be no coincidence of my location with any other users, except maybe at one given time... not to mention that I started my itinerary in the opposite part of the world). In this situation, I can guess the best intentions of those that acted, after hearing "scary" words like Macedonia, but the point of an SPI is not to get rid of it quickly, but rather to resolve it in a way that helps move on with encyclopedic work. Anyway, I hope concerned users don't take offence on this comment of mine; I refrained from commenting on this till now, but I see it as one of the sources of the current problem, and a clarification or intervention might be needed to finally move on... Antipastor (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I'm old fashioned, but a checkuser's role in an SPI investigation is to evaluate the technical evidence (note, I was the checkuser in question). The technical evidence supported no conclusions. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct. So, according to you, is user Draganparis parade through Wikipedia spamming warnings regarding these IPs justified? GK (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    HalfShadow blocked for BLP violations on Don Murphy

    Resolved
     – HalfShadow indef blocked, to be revisited in one week  — [Unsigned comment added by Mike R (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC).][reply]

    Moved to subpage Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Don Murphy photo. Moonriddengirl (talk)

    I've opined that the ongoing general discussion (subsection "Unflattering" photos?) is unsuitable for ANI and expect the thread to migrate elsewhere shortly. –xenotalk 13:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass canvassing

    Jerzeykydd had engaged in an edit war twice(1,2,3,4,5,6) the las 6 weeks on the article Public image of Barack Obama, in which he was warned, but evidently not blocked for. After finally taking the issue up on the talk page, but not getting the results desired, the user is now mass canvassing other editorsto get the results the editor wants(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12). And that's half of the 24 messages(so far) the user has sent. DD2K (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we ever have a discussion without having someone come on here and complain? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should read the canvassing guidelines(particularly the "Votestacking" and "Excessive cross-posting" portions. It wouldn't hurt to read WP:Third Opinion either, since your mass messages have nothing to do with what it states in that section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DD2K (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 April 2005
      • I'd like to know if the users canvassed would be likely to support one pov over another or whether they are a fair cross section of those contributing to this area. I'd particularly like to hear Jerzeykydd's explaination of why he chose those editors to canvass. Spartaz Humbug! 08:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I chose those specific editors because they are active in wikipedia and specifically in American political articles.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm curious what criteria, exactly, you used. I would seem to be a poor candidate for either of those. --Rory096 18:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not know every user that Jerzeykydd notified, but one would have to have some kind of criteria when gathering the list of users you were canvassing. It seems as if you were contacting users you thought would be sympathetic to your desired removal of content and mixed in some users that were not. Also, how does DemosforCongress fit even the vague criteria you listed above? The user has not edited since January 9, has only a handful of total edits, but has a user page that states "George Demos is a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in the First District of New York". Even after the canvassing and discussion on the talk page, you had editors(including yourself) remove portions of the article that were being discussed. DD2K (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat to shut us down

    Resolved
     – The anon has been blocked for two weeks, and, err, notified of this discussion. jæs (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Made here, article Katyn massacre. I have not notified this user. --CliffC (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked. Crum375 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And reduced to two weeks since its an IP. The threat is laughable anyway, two weeks is probably overkill--Jac16888Talk 03:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the notification part is optional - even as I type it says above the box "You must notify any user that you discuss". Are you sure about the blocked part? The user hasn't received a block notice as far as I can see, so if they have been blocked they won't know why. I am sure they can guess, given the nature of their edits, but still that shouldn't be an excuse for procedural laziness. And here is a link to the policy about block lengths where it says "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked" in bold letters. Weakopedia (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that people who do things so blatantly obvious as this need to be notified; there is no defense and it will just be a block anyways. WP:BURO does contain a nugget of common sense. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc, you didnt make a "procedural error" you intentionally decided unilaterally that there was no reason to contact that user, that is not your decision to make. This is BAD. Please dont do it again, such an attitude is not what Wikipedia needs.Camelbinky (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Er—surely it was CliffC and not Tarc who decided not to notify? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is the point of notifying a blocked user of an ANI other than process-wonkery? --Smashvilletalk 16:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand policy and how it is normally implemented even a blocked editor has the right to post on his/her talk page and for someone to paste it over to AN/I so they can defend themselves. And in this case at least according to Weakopedia it seems this user was NOT blocked at the time or at least it wasnt posted on their talk page. So yea informing the person should be done EVERY time.Camelbinky (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Camelbinky, the accused must be given a right to defend themselves. Whether it is by an editorial sanction restricting them to their user and talk pages and ANI only, or by allowing them access only to their talk page and having an editor c&p their comments, or by allowing e-mail access only and an editor offering to post the contents of an e-mail on their behalf. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I understanding this correctly? You guys are arguing that someone who has threatened to hack and "shut down" the site has a right to have their further blatherings copied and pasted here? This is not a court of law, they're not entitled to be heard. I sincerely doubt the "threat" was anything other than trolling, but the point remains that we are not a bureaucracy, and going over the deep end because an anonymous vandal didn't get their day in court is bizarre, to say the least. jæs (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Oh, come on. What possible "defense" can the IP possibly offer for this inane comment: "rights to post this documents? please present the rights and you can return, if not then 2 days later, your site will be shut down and hacked. thank you" It's a troll. Treat it like one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, the user has been notified about the ANI thread but not about the block. It would make more sense the other way. The block is fine, WP:RBI. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And there you have it. Marking as resolved. jæs (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Radiopathy

    Information

    This user has been to the noticeboards many times, more often than not, as the person being reported. Recently, they were caught red handed socking to evade their indef 1rr restriction, and their abuse of twinkle, which got them added to the twinkle blacklist.

    Currently, the sock is blocked indef, and the main account blocked a week. I personally don't think that's enough, so I'm asking for other's opinions here.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disappointing If he wants to retire, he can retire. If he wants to abide by the rules, he can abide by the rules. But if he's going to keep on editing in contravention of the rules, he has to be blocked or banned. I've had numerous bad interactions with this user and I believe that he edits in bad faith when interacting with other users. He has made it clear that he will lie to manipulate the community on Wikipedia and has resorted to not-so-subtle threats against me to try to get me blocked or banned for spurious reasons. I am not an admin, but I would like to voice my support for an extended block or outright ban as this user is unwilling or unable to abide by any community standard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum I would like to point out that Radiopathy can be a very useful editor, frequently improving articles and even—ironically—reporting sockpuppets. It would be unfortunate for him to be banned outright, but I still think that a serious block might send the message that he cannot simply evade community sanctions with impunity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see in his block log that he has been blocked before for violating 1RR restrictions: on 10 December 2009 (1 week) and on 21 February 2010 (1 week). While this is his first effort at socking, it is his third effort to avoid 1RR restrictions, and he has effectively been blocked for it for the same length of time. But he hasn't been using his primary account since 2 April; it seems that this sock was some kind of WP:CLEANSTART effort, which he can't do while under sanctions. Lengthening the block of the primary account isn't likely to make a difference, given its inactivity. Are you thinking about a ban? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think an indefinite block is justified unless there is any evidence he's had a change of heart. He understands what is expected here, he just doesn't want to abide by the rules. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As already mentioned above, the primary account is pretty much inactive; therefore, an indef-block alone may not be practical. For this particular case, a long-term community ban may be what's needed to send the message that the user's continued disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    On a side note, I've added the sock's links.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Radiopathy was once a good contributor, although he's certainly had problems dealing with other editors for quite a while. At this point, he hasn't made a decent contribution to the project in months. Everytime someone takes issue with his lack of respect for other editors, he retires. The only reason he's come back since his last retirement was to hound an editor he had previously had problems with [77] [78]. As he told us all once upon a time to "get a fuckin' life already" [79], and he's since socked to avoid restrictions and his block history, I have no problem with an indef for now. Let's get him back to one account that we can keep an eye on, try and get him to understand civility and edit warring, and work from there. Dayewalker (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The sock is now requesting an unblock.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Which has been declined.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Includeonly I made a request on his talk saying that I would create a <includeonly> section and transclude it here if he had anything to say for himself. If his past actions are any indication, he will simply revert my post, but I figured it was worth a go and it would be an opportunity for him to respond to the conversation here (as he is currently blocked and can only edit his talk.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't care. Well then, if RP is unwilling to follow our rules, or explain himself, and per the above, should a ban discussion not start, then?— Dædαlus Contribs 21:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay It was worth a shot. He's unwilling to even contribute and apparently as intransigent as before, so I guess my earlier statement still stands. His former account is primarily used to harass me and his current account is primarily used to circumvent the restrictions on his other account. It seems clear to me that the only options at this point are a serious or long block or ban. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    His responses as his sock are exactly the kind of behavior that we've come to expect from Radiopathy, he doesn't care for rules, civility, or sanctions. He wants to declare the new account his primary acount and "edit in peace," and ignore all of the problems he's caused for himself previously. Dayewalker (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    His declaration to edit in peace is actually a fallacy. One need only look through his contributions to see that he was doing the same things his primary account got blocked for the first time.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The sock is continuing to deny he is a sock, and that he has done anything wrong by socking to evade his indef 1rr sanction and his twinkle community sanction(he was blacklisted). I would like to wait for some opinions from involved and univolved admins before starting the community ban discussion.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Redux I guess Radiopathy is back and willing to listen to the community. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked for direct confirmation that he has directly violated WP:SOCK by abusing multiple accounts with the MP sock account. Let's see how he answers.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They have blanked the above, which to me is just continued denial of the sock. If he blanks my post without a response once more, I'll start the ban discussion.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps a longer block could have been given for abusive sock-puppetry, but a week's block is not unreasonable either. Lets not waste any more of our time on this issue - if at the end of the week Radiopathy returns and contributes constructively and in line with their edit-restrictions, that's well and good; if not, they can be reblocked, or a ban considered. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Radiopathy's response

    I agree to adhere to the 1RR sanction, not that it's necessary anymore, but it's just some baggage I'll need to carry around for a while. I also feel that I should state explicitly, since the issue arose, that I agree to not use multiple accounts. My account, however, shall maintain it's "Retired" status until such time that I feel comfortable rejoining the community. Radiopathy •talk• 22:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    And my request about direct admittance that MP is his sock goes unanswered.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Note

    I have substituted the transclusion as this discussion is now over.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Radiopathy, what do you mean by "clarifying" will not use to will not abuse? Are you using multiple accounts? I think in your present situation there is no way you can use multiple accounts legitimately. If any of your alternate accounts are editing disruptively then you're improperly concealing the connection between them to escape scrutiny. If none of them are editing disruptively then you're operating good-hand/bad-hand accounts. So I think you should be restricted to one account (WP:CLEANSTART is perhaps ok, but it means you have to stop using your old accounts). At minimum, disclose all aliases to [email protected] and state here (truthfully) that you've done that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Range block sought for IP anon with rotating address

    Per this discussion, I am seeking an IP range block for a user who appears to do nothing more than remove citation requests from articles, then move on to a new IP address and do it again. It is pointless to block each IP address individually, because he can just get a new one. BOZ (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    60.166.64.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked 2 weeks. Let me know if they switch to another IP or come back after the block. Tim Song (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do, thanks - 60.166.73.198 popped up on my watchlist today, and it looks like they've been at it for a while with multiple different IPs. BOZ (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated Talk page blanking

    User:Ruin Cireela blanked the page Talk:List of Adventure Time with Finn and Jake episodes after User:AdventureTime suggested there that Ruin Cireela's edits were inappropriate (diff). I restored the talk page's content and warned the user not to blank talk pages. The user again blanked the talk page and then made a series of edits similar to those earlier objected to by AdventureTime (first diff of six). I have advised Ruin Cireela to stop blanking the Talk page and to seek consensus with other editors before again editing the List. I suggested that failure to do so may result in temporary page protection. I also rolled back the controversial edits to the List, though I have not paid close attention to their content as I have no particular interest in the content of the page. Cnilep (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No need to protect the page, you have given the editor a final warning and a link to this discussion where they might rationalise their actions; if they blank a talkpage again, and especially without responding to the various comments, then report them to AIV for disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jacksisco

    User:Jacksisco has violated the image use policy and continues to violate user page guidelines. I would recommend a block for a lengthy period and, upon lifting of the block, he obtain an indefinite block if he continues his Myspace-like editing (see his edit count). He has contributed photos likely to be non-free as his own. His editing is disruptive because he occasionally adds categories and article templates to his user page which contaminate the encyclopedia categories. Repeated attempts to contact the user have been ignored, as have repeated offers of help. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blanked the userpage per WP:NOT#WEBHOST and warned them against repeating the actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit Warring on Talk:John J. Pershing

    Resolved
     – no admin action required HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    User:Mk5384 is edit warring on the talk page of the John J. Pershing article. This appears to be about some comments that User:Aunt Entropy made about MK's views on this article as well as another the user is involved in. MK then began removing the comments of Aunt E, saying they were off-topic. However, I do not think that this is appropriate since it did seem to be a legit question and was not vandalism. In any event, MK has now removed the comments three times [80] [81] [82]. -OberRanks (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And a fourth time now as well; the last edit also cutting out some comments I made. [83] -OberRanks (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mk5384 asked me about this:

    On the John Pershing page, user Aunt Entropy posted a comment that I had made on the talk page of Genesis Creation myth. (Please take a look.) It was completely unrelated to the Pershing issues, and as such, deliberately misleading. I removed it, stated that I had removed it, gave my reasons, and notified the user who posted it. OberRanks (who else?) raised a fuss about this, and I wanted to make sure that I was within my rights to do this.Mk5384 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

    Strictly speaking, nothing in WP:TPG would preclude such a line of argument. If you feel it is irrelevant, you could rebut or ask the user to refactor. –xenotalk 15:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    I'm heading out; so I don't have the time to look into this further. –xenotalk 16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the comment, stated that I had done so, stated why, notified the user, and notified an admin. OberRanks said that he would leave it to the original editor, then put it back himself 3 different times. I have gone out of my way to be polite on the Pershing article.Mk5384 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I put an in use template here, as I have been trying to finish my statement. However, it is continually being ignored, so I will return to this.Mk5384 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to finish this. Again, the post had nothing to do with the Pershing article; Auntie E was trying to bolster support for "Genesis Creation myth", by using my position that the word "nigger" should not be removed. I discussed this on her talk page. OberRanks is the only one edit warring, as he returned something 3 times, that a) had nothing to do with the article, and b) that he promised not to return. I have been extremely cordial in reference to the Pershing debate. I have worked dilligently on the talk page to reach consensus, and have refrained from editing the article itself in the meanwhile. OberRanks made false accusations of sockpuppetry against me on an administrator's talk page. When I got justifibly angry about this, he returned to his childishness, as a "premtive strike".Mk5384 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You did NOT tell me you removed my post, nor was I told about this report. I would like it put back please. Can I do that? Auntie E. (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, Mk5384, I did not post to that talkpage to "bolster support for "'Genesis creation myth'" in the title. If you had paid attention, you'd have seen I support the change to "narrative." Auntie E. (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Those comments look perfectly valid to me and I see no reason to remove them and certainly not to edit war over their presence. If there is a problem with the, then it should be discussed calmly rather than summarily removing them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OberRanks did the edit warring; not I. However, the original user has posted it again. I have left it there, and rebutted it.Mk5384 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rihanna fan proving problematic and ignoring constant warnings

    I believe User:Iluvrihanna24 is too attached to Rihanna(i.e. a massive fan) and is therefore refusing to take head of advice and warnings. Rather than providing the 10+ individual diffs to show all of the warnings he/she has recieved about editing rihanna articles i have simply provided a link to his talk page User talk:Iluvrihanna24 where an extensive number of warnings have been given for a wide range of editing offenses included sourcing bad charts, adding unsourced information and going against WP:notability (music). Here are some examples of myself or other users having to remove unsourced info or undo disruptive edits from this user:April 1, April 3 which was removed here, April 9, April 10-11, April 11, April 12, April 13, April 14, April 25 (1). I'm not sure what kind of sanction would be appropriate but i'm sure that repeated addition of unsourced information, edit warring over unverifiable content, additional of unreliable sources and repeated addition of WP:BADCHARTS requires some sort of administrator intervention. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    sorry! i didnt know that twitter was a bad source. i do apologise. i do try and add a reliable source to my information i add but i will be more careful and think before i act. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. (By the way i am a very big Rihanna fan!) Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Iluvrihanna24, for the future it would be good to respond to warnings and get some sort of dialog going with people who are trying to give you advice. It'll avoid them having to make reports like this. Communication is important here. Equazcion (talk) 17:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
    I think a block in this case would be harsh and heavy handed. Perhaps Iluvrihanna24 could agree to use the talk page function more often and remember to consult WP:record charts, WP:notability (music), wp:albums, WP:songs, WP:crystal etc. I had left several warnings about twitter in the past and whenever myself or others revert your edits we always say why in the edit summary. I think if you agree to use an WP:edit summary and follow the protocols above. we can agree that this was a case of lack of communication?Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Will the real Orly Taitz please stand up?

    Uncertain of where to proceed here. This user account claims to be the real Orly Taitz, and has been leaving scads of personal info on the article talk page as "proof". I left a note on their user page earlier regarding WP:REALNAME, but as the account is continuing to post more personal details, it does not seem that this was heeded. Should the account just be blocked until an identity can be verified? Tarc (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Depends if the content violates WP:BLP and/or WP:CITE. Even if it is the real person (I have no idea who it is!) content can't be kept without cites. I remember Bill Bailey's birthday was kept the same despite him tweeting that it was wrong, because it wasn't WP:RS. SGGH ping! 17:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that it violates BLP to be giving out phone numbers and personal info on an article talk page in an attempt to prove identity, yes. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We could ask her to post a copy of her birth certificate on her talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So the question here is whether this is Orly or ORLY? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I left her the contact info for article problems and photo submission. AniMate 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering we're all just marxist thugs, I would demand more than just her birth certificate. I want to see her COLB, her license to practice dentistry, license to practice law and of course, no copies allowed. Ravensfire (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm not a Marxist thug. I am, however, a Lennonist slug. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)'m more of a Trotskyist myself, but I doubt shades of grey matter much in birtherville. Anyways, the account is now blocked, and if it really was Dr. Taitz, then she knows what to to to verify her account. Tarc (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) I've blocked the account until the identity is confirmed by OTRS. Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say that there's no need to worry about the posting of phone numbers, as that's the same phone number she uses in her filings to the US District Court. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues with Anti-Satellite Weapon system

    For the past few days, Yattum and I have had some disagreements with regards to which countries should be included on the list for this project. I'm afraid I don't understand Yattum's rationale and it appears that he's just come on the page and randomly started removing information without attempting to form a consensus. It's also important to note that this information has been there for months and no one else editing the page has had any particular issues with it. Yattum claims that making this claim goes against WP:Crystal Ball but I'm not so sure it does as numerous sources have stated that the country is actively developing the components for this system. I didn't post a date as it would be premature but I do think that the country warrants inclusion on the list as it is developing the components for such a system and has actively announced this. I did note that the country did not have a formal project as of yet but the system is under development. I also noted on the disccusion page that I would be perfectly open to including any other countries but I was unable to find any information about other planned ASAT weapons.

    Thanks, Vedant (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article can be found here.

    Yattum (talk · contribs) has been blocked for blatantly violating 3RR after being warned, but Vedant is not innocent here, I request that another administrator review his behavior and issue sanctions accordingly if they are warranted. -MBK004 01:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisting at AfD

    I think somebody should go through and check the relistings that User:Mono made at AFD. Just spot checking them, I think most of them could have been closed. There are a few that are on their 3rd or 4th relisting---if consensus can't be reached after 2 or 3 previous relistings, then close it. There are others where the consensus seems pretty clear, but they were relisted. Two different people have contacted Mono about his relistings User_talk:Mono#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FBritish_Balloon_Modelling_Convention_2007 and User_talk:Mono#AfD relists. Normally I would simply wait for his return to respond, but at the top of his page he has a note indicating that he is on a long wikibreak. Since he is on a long wikibreak, I wanted to bring it here to have somebody else take an objective look at his relistings. Since I nominated 2 of the articles he relisted, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to act on this subject. Here are Mono's contributions [[84]].---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • He also NAC'd some AfDs that weren't re-listed. I've closed three of the re-lists and also re-closed one of the others, as it clearly wasn't in line with consensus in the AfD. Others have closed ones that were re-listed excessively as no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's what I thought, but since I was involved in at least two of them, I wanted to let somebody else act.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user abusing talk page editing

    Resolved

    99.63.245.4 (talk · contribs) is abusing the privilege of editing his/her own user talk page, so I am requesting that the block settings be changed so that the user cannot edit the talk page. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 19:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps he was locked in a time capsule or something. That or his TARDIS malfunctioned :) –MuZemike 21:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    April 2010 Baghdad bombings

    Resolved

    Vimbo Gales (talk · contribs) is repeatedly adding the unsourced claim that the CIA carried out the April 2010 Baghdad bombings to that article. Notices on his talk page to not add unreferenced claims have been met with notices on my talk page to not add unreferenced claims (which I have not) and requesting citations that al-Qaeda carried out the bombing (which are already in the article).

    I don't want to look like I'm edit warring, quite honestly don't want to be involved in this at all, and also have to go somewhere IRL quite soon. Could someone please look in on this issue? Thanks, //Programming gecko (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vimbo Gales blocked for edit-warring, although this is exactly the kind of thing that must be verified, and Vimbo Gales does not seem to get it.--Chaser (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit late - but I suppose it has been noted that the account name is a play on "Jimbo Wales" (transpose initials, then G for J and V - which makes up half of... for W)? The editor was obviously not here to improve the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin User:Shii: restoration/wheelwarring and incivility

    Shii is a longtime Wikipedia volunteer and administrator yet he has been acting in a way that I feel is inappropriate to his position. He has misused his restoration tool on several pages. Kalki Bhagavan was deleted unanimously due to this AfD, yet was recently restored by Shii with the summary "undo a really dumb deletion". Shii is also wheel-warring on Talk:Oneness University, twice restoring the history of the page when it had been deleted before (by AfD and by CSD as a recreation of deleted material - see page log). Shii has not attempted to engage in discussion with any of the deleting administrators, nor has he bothered to go to deletion review. When confronted on his talkpage, Shii responded flippantly. To me this incident appears as an abuse of Shii's restoration tool, and his communication habits in response to an attempted discussion are not anywhere close to the level of civility expected of administrators. Shii's questionable talk page behaviour was discussed on this board back in February, so this issue is nothing new.

    I'm not really sure if this is the proper place to post, since an RFC/U was discussed in the last posting, but I'm seeking some sort of a quick consensus that Shii's talk page behaviour is out of line for an administrator justifying his actions and I'd like to get an admonishment for him not to use his tools in an inappropriate manner. ThemFromSpace 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow dude, you haven't brought up a single issue with the article itself. Instead you've been whinging at me over technicalities with no apparent meaning, and when I told you to bug off you took it here, still with no meaning. Okay, if you want a response to these wikilawyer issues, I'll give you one: it is now 2010, not 2008. Both the AfD and the prior ANI incident you link to took place in 2008. It's not my job to bring you up to the present day, you have to do that yourself. Let me know if you want to work on an encyclopedia, I'll talk to you more politely when you show the scarcest amount of evidence for that. Cheers, Shii (tock) 02:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I didn't see that the last ANI was in 2008, although there are still problematic comments on your talk page right now. My apologies for linking to that. But your dismissive response toward the rest of the criticism is precisely the issue. Courtesy and civility go a long way and as an administrator you need to be more approachable and respectful of other editors. I still would like to see what other editors think of this and your out-of-procedure page restorations. ThemFromSpace 02:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, okay, I'm being a dick. I need to conquer my trolling instinct, so I'm sorry about that. I still would like to see some criticism you have made of the article itself, which I restored so that I could add useful citations. Shii (tock) 02:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Shii, don't be a dick ;-). How about moving the article to your userspace so you can work on it. When you've added enough citations you can put it back in mainspace. (Actually I haven't looked at the article or the afd, so don't know if there's any other issues with it). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No opinion on the behavior of Shii or the current state of Kalki Bhagavan but the original AFD was a poster child for WP:ATA IMHO. A "vague wave" rationale, some WP:JNN delete !votes, one WP:IDONTLIKEIT and only one !voter mentioned the word "sources". I can see how that might be viewed as "really dumb" but still, that's not a phrase that should be seen in the article's logs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pedophilia advocacy on Lolicon

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Given the current ArbCom ruling about pedophilia advocacy on Wikipedia, I would like to bring this edit to the attention of the administrators. The edit by Despondent2 (talk · contribs) advocates for the legalization of cartoon pornography depicting minors. —Farix (t | c) 23:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope that a warning will be sufficient; I've added this user's talk page to my watchlist, too, in hopes that I'll notice if there's an ongoing problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope so, but admitting to being a paedophile here (or almost anywhere) seems to be an invitation to "string me up from the nearest lamppost"; arguing for the legality of certain images (which in general are not illegal) is not necessarily "pedophilia advocacy", since the status and effect of these images is moot. However, I will also watch this editor (who hasn't been advised of this thread). Neither should we rule out a journalist testing us, or just plain trolling. Rodhullandemu 23:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good lord. "I am an actual pedophile but I have never harmed a child." It's probably a troll, so block them. But if it's not a troll, it's a self-admitted pedophile let lose in a playground filled with children. Perhaps wikipedia will help him get started? Where's the block? (If he needs graphic cartoon pornography involving children, he can get it elsewhere.) This is block on site stuff.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of any "block pedophiles on sight" policy. Equazcion (talk) 23:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
    Apparently there is one, as Draconian as it sounds. With arbcom, anything is possible. I'd rather have him blocked for trolling or severe POV pushing (which are both applicable here) than his sexual orientation in itself. ThemFromSpace 23:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right -- let him hang around, befriend a few kids, get their emails, suggest a meatup over coffee somewhere after school where they can discuss the kids interesting ideas. Is that what you have in mind themfromspace?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Too much moral outrage in that argument for me, and not enough substance. There is such a policy? Where? I'm not seeing any advocacy here or POV pushing. That would be one thing, but all I see here is a sexual deviant (maybe) who happened to speak a little too much of their mind for comfort, and I'm not too fond of the idea of blocking people on that basis. If we are to block admitted pedophiles on sight even when they haven't advocated it or pushed article content in that direction, I think that should be written down in some policy. If there already is such a policy please point us to it. Equazcion (talk) 23:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
    It's probably just a troll, but he's indef'd now anyway, courtesy of FloNight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I blocked the account and referred the user to contact ArbCom. For a variety of reasons this account needs to be blocked. Any questions about the block can be taken up with ArbCom on the mailing list. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Makes my intended comments somewhat redundant. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, and I'm also not too fond of the cloak-and-dagger ArbCom practices with regard to any mention of pedophilia. The whole "it's too sensitive to discuss in public" thing is all wrong, IMO. Taking things out of the public eye does not ensure that they get handled correctly. When a group can do things without accountability to open criticism, it's never good. Equazcion (talk) 23:49, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
    Right -- screw protecting innocent children! It's a fundamental human right to edit wikipedia! Jesus.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Equazcion. In this case we are really dealing with a troll. But if convicted criminals can contribute to Wikipedia (from jail or after release), then why not people with politically incorrect sexual orientations? If we have information that someone is a dangerous person who is about to commit a crime, then we are obliged to inform the police about this. Banning from Wikipedia can never be an effective reaction to a perceived threat to society. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already said my piece about self-identified pedophiles before. However, so long as some admins interpret the ArbCom case in such a way, then we are going to have to live with it. —Farix (t | c) 00:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's try not to get bogged down in too much philosophy. The fact is we're dealing with someone who fantasizes about doing something that's a crime. If anyone else described themselves thusly with regard to some other action they wouldn't get banned. FloNight has done this before, and rest assured it's not to protect the children. It's to protect the reputation of Wikipedia in the press, specifically in publications that would take pedophilia-related discussion and twist it into some statement that Wikipedia condones pedophilia. As strange as it may sound, a discussion regarding someone who fantasizes about murder would not have resulted similarly. Pedophilia is simply too taboo a subject to even hint that we are comfortable talking about it, lest people judge Wikipedia for it. That's the only concern here, and it frankly disgusts me. Equazcion (talk) 00:00, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
    I couldn't give one runny shit for wikipedia's reputation. I don't know Flonight. But the right thing was done here. As for disgust. Well, you disgust me frankly. Why? Well, start here: Child grooming (i'm assuming the wikipedia article is a relatively sane explanation of the problem, though i haven't read it).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is taking outside Wikipedia what is our province, and ours alone. ArbCom has decided that pedophile advocacy should be forbidden from here, and that is to my mind correct for here. That is quite a different proposition from deciding that a "pedophile advocate" is necessarily a criminal worthy of investigation, and actually I'm more or less aware that such edits here are already supervised by law enforcement authorities, and although we will help them, the chances would be that those people are already under surveillance due to other activities. Let's face it, if you are a criminal pedophile, advertising it here just isn't smart, because we do have Checkusers, and the WMF Office, who deal with this sort of thing. And if there were any child grooming on Wikipedia, it would be spotted he more quickly than on, say, Windows Messenger. That's why this is an unlikely forum for such. Some reality would assist here. Rodhullandemu 00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Realizing you weren't responding to me, I just want to clarify that the only thing I see actually being advocated in this person's comment was the legalization of lolicon images. Pedophilia wasn't being advocated, even if he states his own desires regarding that. Equazcion (talk) 00:18, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
    Also his argument implicitely assumes that pedophilia (in the sense of sex with children) is a bad thing. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I understand that; I saw no advocacy beyond perhaps a criticism of the law wherever he is. However, it seems to be enough here to state "I am a pedophile" to ensure an indefinite block. It is not up to me to evaluate that here, beyond offering an opinion that it's a foolish thing to state in a very public forum. However, the strength of public, and journalistic, opinion is that pedophiles do not deserve the oxygen of publicity, or even the oxygen of oxygen, and I note that Pete Townshend has not produced much in the way of memorable music of late. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But that would suggest that Alan Turing would not have been allowed to contribute to Wikipedia had it existed in the 1950s. Count Iblis (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We could throw up our hands thusly and say that's just how society works and we must obey, but traditionally Wikipedia has played by its own rules in that department. No matter how many complaints we keep getting and how different it makes us from other websites, we're still uncensored to an unprecedented degree. I would've liked to think that those ideals were in effect no matter how taboo the subject matter. Equazcion (talk) 00:47, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Turing was never "out", because in those days homosexual activities were criminal, although simply being a homosexual wasn't. Similar argument here. Being a pedophile doesn't imply that one commits criminal offences, although you'd be hard put to discern the difference these days. And that's the problem we have, in discriminating between the desire and the practice. Most people don't recognise that, as far as I have seen in my research in criminology. Turing would have been perfectly capable of contributing here on computability and cryptanalytical issues, but would not have exposed his sexuality, because he was perfectly aware that it was a social taboo. Certainly he would not have used such a publicly-viewable website to try to make sexual liaisons, because he would have know beyond doubt that his activities would have been visible. And how ironic it is that he chose to take his life with a cyanide-laced apple, the very symbol of man's original fall, according to the Bible. Rodhullandemu 00:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The original report appears to have been resolved (for good or ill) by Despondent2's blocking. Could this thread be taken elsewehere, as it seems now to be a general discussion outwith the AN/I remit? Tonywalton Talk 00:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (EC)Editing Wikipedia isn't a right. Espousing pedophiliac views are frowned upon by the community here at large and by those in charge at WMF. Why do we have this discussion every time a pedo shows his head around here? Does anyone really think the concensus on this matter is ever gonna change? He popped up his head, got whacked and referred to ARBCOM. End of story, someone close this dram fueled thread and let it die. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The weird thing to me is that the article in question has a picture, but when someone say "I like this picture," it's a block? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Per ArbCom User:Flo Night: "For a variety of reasons this account needs to be blocked"; we don't have the full information here, but we do, perhaps, need to trust the people we elected there. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with that logic. I don't inherently get behind the decisions of people just because they were elected (even if I was involved in getting them elected, which in this case I wasn't). I judge each action individually, and criticize it if necessary, which I think is my right. Equazcion (talk) 01:15, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)
    Well I can't actually disagree with that, but we all know that Checkuser actions and WMF Office actions are not open to general scrutiny- they just happen. The lack of an effective public review of such actions may be open to criticism, but the reality is that that is the way it works, and we cannot collectively enforce openness without a major change in the structure of governance/control/review of higher-level decisions, and until we do so (although that would take a major sea-change in philosophy here) we are stuck with what we have. ArbCom/Checkuser/Oversight appointments are not made lightly and are less of a beauty contest than admin appointments have become. Some surrender of individual responsibility and understanding appears to me to be a necessary result of having these functions, although I doubt that we are so closed that individual decisions cannot be met by a appropriate explanation. I vote for functionaries I trust, and that is on the basis of their prevailing record, as far as I can see it. But if they go beyond their remit, believe me, I will question that, but perhaps not here. I've have many discussions in private that have allayed my fears. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because this is driving me crazy: the repeated reference in this discussion to pedophilia as a "sexual orientation" is a very poor and inaccurate choice of words. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder that, if acted upon, is a criminal act. It is not a sexual orientation. jæs (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not necessarily. You should distinguish between the DSM-IV definition and the popular definition; they are not necessarily congruent. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Somewhat common misconception ≠ a definition. In any event, I suspect this account was merely a troll looking for attention, and we certainly obliged. jæs (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And on that basis, this discussion deserves to be closed. Serious discussions about the powers/responsibilities of ArbCom belong elsewhere, as do discussions of what actually amounts to "pedophile advocacy". But this case seems to have run its course. Rodhullandemu 01:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    What arbcom ruling are people referencing above? Does someone have a link? Buddy431 (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not advertised (not that I can recall), but the general rule is that all instances of paedophile advocacy should be referred to ArbCom by email - in much the same way as requests for oversight, and for similar reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Koavf

    This editor has brought a notable article to Afd, and is now actively changing the article in question while the AfD is still open, ready to engage others in an edit war. The editor insists that Stryper's 2007 album release The Roxx Regime Demos is a demo and not an album. Thus, since he has declared it to be a demo, it is therefore not notable and the article should be deleted. However, The Roxx Regime Demos is not a demo, but an officially released full album consisting of demo-songs which were remastered in the studio. Major players in the professional music business including Stryper themselves have declared 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be an album/compilation, and not a demo: Allmusic.com, MSN.com, MTV.com, vh1.com, RollingStones.com, Stryper Website. Furthermore on the article, the article's talk page and on AfD I provided several reliable verifiable sources which have significantly covered Stryper's 'The Roxx Regime Demos' album. Koavf is actively ignoring these and other numerous reliable verifiable sources which prove that the 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is not a demo. It appears as if he is ready to engage others in edit war on the article in question, and has thus placed his eye on repeatedly changing the type of album from studio to demo, thus pushing forth his own personal opinion about this issue, without providing any reliable verifiable sources to prove that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is a demo. I am not the one who placed the 'type of album' to studio, I merely reverted Koavf's change. Koavf came right back to revert my revert thus actively about to engage me in an edit war, which I refuse. This type of editing, ignoring reliable sources and his current changing of the type of album, is disruptive. Koavf has a long history of blocks, community ban and topic ban, and it appears as if in this case he is back to his former ways of aggressive and disruptive editing. Thus I have brought the issue to this board. Could an administrator please thoroughly look into this issue? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive? I have made my case for AfD on the relevant page, and it is not a spurious one. I find it telling that Amsaim has no problem with the fact that he has edited this page several times during the AfD (1, 2, and 3.) He also has no problem with me adding Category:Compilation albums to the article and he has no problem with User:SunCreator removing Category:Demo albums from the article, but he thinks my sole revert (with a credible source) is disruptive enough to warrant posting at AN/I. Simply put, this is a spurious allegation on his part. He claims that this article is "notable", but that is exactly the nature of the AfD, and so far, only one third-party source provides any critical commentary, so it's entirely legitimate of me to propose AfD and it is not disruptive, nor is this single sourced revert to the article itself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum I would like to also add that Category:Demo albums was on the article before I ever saw it and before the AfD began, so if anything, it should remain until the AfD is closed. This is clearly a non-starter of an "incident." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One more I would also like to point out that one of the sources listed by Amsaim above explicitly reads (emphasis added) "Roxx Regime Demos, is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos from this pre-Stryper edition of the band." And this is a source that he has provided to prove that this isn't a demo album. I am honestly at a loss here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Koavf is (purposely?) misquoting the album's review by allmusic.com. Allmusic.com in the full and correct quotation, writes: "And the 2007 compilation, Roxx Regime Demos, is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos from this pre-Stryper edition of the band.". Notice how he left out the compilation part which clearly puts 'The Roxx Regime Demos' in the album section? Allmusic.com calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation - and not a demo. Big difference there. Amsaim (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things This is increasingly ridiculous. First off, the instructions at the top of this page read "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." which you did not do. Secondly, I added Category:Compilation albums to the article. Finally, whether or not it is an album or a compilation album has never been in dispute; no one is arguing that, so I have no idea why you continue claiming it here. Simply put, you didn't follow the instructions for this process, you ignored the dispute resolution process, and your post here is far more out of line than anything I've done to that article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well this is all jolly fun... but this is the Administrators' noticeboard and we haven't heard from them yet... --Jubilee♫clipman 03:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There is quite a history here. However, I think this is a case of a misplaced over-zealousness on the part of Koavf, personally. He has interpreted the guidelines in a particular way and gone ahead and either PRODed or AfDed a large number of articles because of his interpretation. However, those guidelines are open to interpretation and are currently being reviewed because of these deletions and Koavf has actually taken part in those discussions unlike the nom. I am inclined to AGF, therefore, and move on --Jubilee♫clipman 02:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does not appear to be an administrator issue at this point. If the AFD is frivilous, enough people will vote keep to close it down. Koavf appears to be being WP:BOLD in his interpretation of existing notability policy; if his interpretation has no consensus, it will become readily apparent from the results of the AFDs. If there is a problem, there are other means of seeking dispute resolution. Try WP:RFC or mediation or some such. --Jayron32 03:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Draftlock

    Draftlock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken it upon himself to archive another user's talk page on the grounds that it's too large. I have reverted him now, twice, and advised him to come here and discuss it, as I don't think it's any of his business to be messing with other users' pages that way. It's nannyism, and I know I certainly wouldn't like it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That user's talk page is 78 kilobytes long. It's helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page & User_talk:Oanabay04/archive1. --Draftlock (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it's up to each user to decide when/if to do it. I agree with BaseballBugs.  7  02:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not all that big, and for a personal talk page, it's the user's choice. Unless you are that user, or have express permission from them, you should not be doing that. Shadowjams (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know such a guideline or unwritten law. Thanks. --Draftlock (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user InkHeart using anons

    InkHeart, a user who has been blocked for some time now and repeatedly causes disruptive editing as anons, has returned as Special:Contributions/212.100.250.207. Can an admin please block this address? Thanks. Ωphois 04:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you provide some diffs and explain how someone who has never seen Inkheart before can tell that this IP address is him? --Jayron32 04:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, was heading to bed so didn't have time to write a detailed complaint. InkHeart used to edit Korean articles and was very possessive of them, and basically started creating multiple accounts so it looked like a lot of people agreed with her edits. Anyways, she got blocked, but continues to come back as anons to add unsourced stuff like here and here. Ωphois 15:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AboutFaace

    Something should be done. This user is edit-warring on Tim Duncan, insisting that he is a center, despite the NBA denoting that he is a forward. He kept reverting even though he is been told on the article's talk page not to change the player's position. I came across this user because Tim Duncan is on my watchlist. I warned AboutFaace about 3rr. But he resorted to disruption by reverting my legitimate edit on another article [85] and leaving abusive comment on my talk [86]. Based on the way he behaves even after several warnings, I feel that perhaps something should be done. As of now, he hasn't violate 3rr yet.—Chris!c/t 05:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Blocked for edit warring. That was a pretty clear-cut case. In the future, you can report such problems to WP:ANEW rather than here for processing. --Jayron32 05:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Err? confused

    Resolved
     – was page-protection, not block Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This account or IP address is currently blocked since 2009. Latest edit today? How does that happen? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He can edit his own talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I thought that had been revoked as well for abuse. Oh wait -- that was page-protection, not block. I'll take it to RPP. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently you succeeded, as the IP is now prevented from editing his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Block and forget?

    Shouldn't User talk:ADPCareers been unblocked after he posted his request for a name change? Or is block and forget the new anti-corporate policy? (Besides CSD G11 scattershot.) Pcap ping 08:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That is unfortunate. The user accidentally copied the {{tlx| part of the unblock request, which essentially kept it from showing up on anybody's radar screen, and I fear it must have escaped User:NawlinWiki's attention, as well. I've corrected it on the user's behalf. It looks like they intend to edit in an area where they have a declared conflict of interest, so I'll try to keep a close eye and assist them with working within WP:COI if I can. But the Automatic Data Processing article could use some work, and so long as it's kept neutral, I hope they'll still be interested in contributing. jæs (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rockyman512

    Rockyman512 (talk · contribs) impersonated a bot on my talk page. I'm not sure if this is a lack of clue copy-paste move, or malicious. Other edits in contributions are weird as well, and his talk page shows it. (If this isn't the place for it, please move it- I'm not sure that this is outright vandalism).

    edit: I didn't see this earlier, but the account's only a couple of hours old- a bit early for clueful vandal fighting, so that might help explain it. What happens with users like this? SS✞(Kay) 09:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    as per the talk page for user_talk:Singlish_speaker i was using a plugin for firefox, not very wise, as we have determined :P Rockyman512 09:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I also received a warning for "blanking" from Rocky but I assume it is because he is too new to realize what my edits were. I was reverting massive plot summary bloat from a repeat problem user. In recent changes, I'm sure the edit came up as a large red negative number (he has not, as of yet, reverted my change, however). I did not actually blank any sections however, so that is a bit confusing. For now I'm assuming good faith as far as intentions but I don't think Rocky fully understands the process, barring some kind of tech problem with the tool he's using. Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has a history of very unhelpful editing. See this edit and this one, where other users are confused by Rockyman512 posting totally spurious warning messages to their talk pages. Then there is this edit, where Rockyman512 posted a block-message to a user who has never been blocked. Then we have this edit and this one in which the user posts notices about proposing a user talk page for speedy deletion for quite nonsensical reasons. And we have this edit, in which Rockyman512 posts a completely spurious warning message and signs the message as coming from Pegasusbot. At a glance all this looks like vandalism and that may be true, but reading more carefully I am not so sure. I think it may be a case of a new user being too enthusiastic at getting going, trying to run before he/she can walk, and getting into a mess. I think this user should be counselled to hold back and learn to edit Wikipedia more slowly. Certainly it is not appropriate for such an inexperienced and confused editor to try to contribute as a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit Task Force: time for that if and when the user has gained a considerable amount of experience of how Wikipedia works. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • @JamesBWatson, note that from my past experience with several alleged newbies, they don't usually get themselves entangled in CVU-related activities right from the start of their editing career here on Wikipedia unless they are up to no good, and usually they are. The other thing is, the genuine ones will usually apologise unreservedly if they had made a mistake, but not for the case of alleged newbies. Read point number 6 & 7 of → WP:OWB ← for more details. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 10:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree that this user's behaviour does not, on the face of it, look like that of a genuine new editor. I was assuming good faith, but deliberately holding back from committing myself (I wrote "this looks like vandalism and that may be true"). I am not sure which this is, but am still willing to assume good faith until evidence points one way or the other. I have also posted a message at User talk:Rockyman512 asking for more details about the Firefox plugin concerned. (However, by no means all of the problems can have been caused by a troublesome plugin.) Finally, it is important to realise that the editor has also made some perfectly constructive edits, though sometimes with minor errors, such as placing comments at the top of talk pages, which looks the sort of mistake a new user might make. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow really? I did apologize for the issue i cause i have read over the rules, and how things are done, and have been paying more attention... Rockyman512 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

    @Rockyman512: TBH, I don't think you have. To which, I shall now bid you adieu, per WP:DENY. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 11:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @dave: How are you affected by this, now please mind your business, you were not involved in anyway Rockyman512 11:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

    Dave, it's completely understandable to be skeptical in this case but for the sake of propriety, how about remembering WP:BITE? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This filter log also shows him vandalizing List of One Piece characters earlier today, and then reporting it as a false positive on WP:FALSEPOS. In the same edit, he was removing someone else's vandalism, so I'm not sure what to think. I've never known the edit filter to mis-attribute edits, but I've never seen someone go to the false positives page and then report their own vandalism either. The "hi kevin" vandalism had been earlier added by an IP address, which I reverted. So it's possible that it was just an edit conflict which he was not aware of, and thus he ended up adding vandalism by mistake. —Soap— 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    how do you get a template like news release taken off of an article after it goes up ?

    One of my articles Red Back Mining was given that template but since then the user who gave it that label and I have added and removed material from it so it doesn't sound as much like a news release. at whose discretion is it ?Grmike (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

    I think you may find it is not your article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    it is my article not in an ownership sense but in the sense that I did all the research for it, all of the content in it was put there by me. if there's anything wrong with the page then it reflects on my reputation as a user and editor.Grmike (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]
    This is not a matter for administrative intervention, so I am copying this discussion to User talk:Grmike, and replying there. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Account impersonation

    Nick Fitzpatrick (talk · contribs) has claimed that his previous account was that of 127 (talk · contribs), and that he abandoned the account after losing his password. Skeptical of this claim based on their vastly different editing histories and on the fact that User:127 made edits subsequent to User:Fitzpatrick making this claim, I asked Nick Fitzpatrick if he was sure he previously used the User:127 account on his talk page, he insisted he had. However, I also asked User:127 about it here and he has denied being Nick Fitzpatrick. I believe that Nick Fitzpatrick is a sockpuppet of User:NoCal100 because of his editing history being intimately tied to User:Los Admiralos, a confirmed sockpuppet of NoCal100. Could someone please look into this issue further? Account impersonation on the part of someone is definitely at play here (and I believe the evidence points more to one than the other). Efforts to get to the bottom of this would be appreciated. Tiamuttalk 10:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We're sure getting a lot of "lost password sob stories" in the past few days. There was also one at Reference Desk (maybe I'll look for it). I don't remember seeing them with any such frequency in the past. There was also the phishing email sent to admins a few weeks ago, and the uptick of the fairly regular phenomenon of users getting emails because random anons tried resetting their passwords. I saw this all as coincidence but begin to wonder if there might be a connection. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked this account for apparent account impersonation and possible sockpuppeting. Crum375 (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned over the password impersonation issues too. This is probably (as someone told me earlier) an issue for the wiki-tech list/irc channel, but I haven't done that myself. If someone might bring it up in the appropriate place it would be appreciated. Shadowjams (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User Varsovian

    Because of these edits, [87], [88], [89], [90], which are a repeated and persistent breach of WP:OR, with much regret I have come to the conclusion that User:Varsovian is displaying WP:TE problems and possibly even WP:OWN and WP:DE issues at the London Victory Parade of 1946. These edits came after Talk page explanation of WP policy/guideline breaches, after I filed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-25/London Victory Parade of 1946, after a WP:DIGWUREN warning here [91], after a edit summary complaint (which wasn't my complaint) about WP:TROLLING and after considerable third-party debate about the subject here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor's tendentious editing is by no means restricted to the edits listed above: both in the article referred to above and elsewhere the editor is clearly trying to a plug particular point of view. Also the editor has been edit-warring in order to keep those tendentious edits in place. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My proposal for solving the content problem at this article is found here [92] I will repeat (and update) it here "The current main article has 1,218 words about Polish participation at the parade and 665 words about everything else connected to the parade. Clearly there should be less about the Polish participation, although it seems that WP:WEIGHT is a policy Chumchum7 is unaware of. Perhaps the entire section regarding Polish representation could be replaced by "Representatives from Poland were invited but did not attend." would be suitable? All editors agree that such representatives were invited and all agree that they did not attend.
    I would like to point out that I was until now unaware of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-25/London Victory Parade of 1946 as Chumchum7 didn't actually bother to tell me about it.
    As to the comments of JamesBWatson, could he perhaps provide a diff or two so that I can see what he is referring to? Varsovian (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One further comment: at the top of this page it clearly states "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Chumchum7 has made absolutely no attempt to discuss the issue with me on my talk page. I am trying very hard to not conclude that this report is a continuation of a strategy shown by the groundless Wikiquette alert [93] filed by Chumchum7, i.e. to win a content dispute by having the other party prevented from adding the other PoV to the article. Varsovian (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to Editor IV JamesBWatson's comment above, I should emphasise that yes the example I chose is indeed only the tip of the iceberg, which points to a very much larger pattern of editing behaviour. I have chosen this example only because it is the most recent one, and because it comes after several chances for ways to be changed and after many opportunities for lessons to be learned. I would invite administrators to look back through the circa 6 weeks of editing history at London Victory Parade of 1946, read its Talk page, and take a glance across the past 6 months for good measure. That would be an entirely objective analysis, and administrators will form their own conclusions. Administrators will also see that my Moderation Cabal message was signed and dated on the Talk page of London Victory Parade of 1946. If they have access to our watch lists, they could take a look at them too, to see what we are aware of. Editors will see that I have discussed Varsovian's behaviour with him several times, and the record of this is on his page, on my page and at the Talk page of London Victory Parade of 1946. Moreover, there are several other editors who are on the record as having similar difficulties communicating with Varsovian. I maintain that I made that Wikiquette alert in good faith, and that I open this case in good faith. If I have breached conflict resolution protocol in any way, I would like administrators to inform me so that I can learn, and so that I can apologize for it if necessary. In any case, the main issue here has been precisely identified and succinctly described by JamesBWatson above. Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You were told here [94] that ANI is not the right place for your complaint and you were told here [95] that you need to discuss the issue with me on my talkpage before filing a dispute at ANI. But still you file the ANI. I am much reminded of the time when you sought assistance from admins. By some freak chance the two admins you decided would be most suitable to resolve our differences were the only admin who has ever blocked me and the only admin who has ever warned me about anything. Are you familiar with the phrase block-shopping? Varsovian (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When readers click your two diffs above, they'll see you are talking about an entirely separate complaint. You are now referring to when I took issue with you adding that Polish people had been in the Waffen-SS, to the London Victory Parade of 1946. But this ANI is on the subject of your 4 edits about the historian Norman Davies, and you taking issue with him, as my 4 diffs show. These are two different subjects - the Waffen-SS and Norman Davies - and this dialogue is an exemplar of the communication problem over the past weeks and months.-Chumchum7 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So this ANI is about Davies? Perhaps you could show where you have attempted to discuss Davies on my talkpage? But to end the wiki-drama I myself will now edit out the part of the article which you object to. I will then propose new wording on the talk page and wait one week for discussion to take place there and consensus to be built. I hope that is acceptable to you. Varsovian (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The 4 diffs presented seem to be a clear case of Varsovian edit warring to insert a personal negative and un-sourced opinion about a respected historian. His claim above that the article has weight problems doesn't address the issue and seems to be an attempt to divert attention.  Dr. Loosmark  12:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced? Please check the links: you will find that the sources of the quotes which Davies contradicts are very reliable: one is the official record of the British Parliament and the other is The Times newspaper. Varsovian (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes unsourced. As in you presented no source which says Davies is wrong in what he wrote. Your personal interpretation that the The Times newspaper article contradicts Davies is basically just that, your personal opinion. Also could you please address the issue of your edit warring?  Dr. Loosmark  13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not unsourced. Davies wrote "on the very eve of the parade" (i.e. 7 June) invitations were sent to Poles other than the internationally recognised government of Poland: both Hansard (twice, do check Hansard, it's online) and The Times stated prior to that date that invitations had been extended to Polish airmen who had served under British command. My personal opinion is that 4 June comes before 7 June, is your opinion that 4 June is actually the same date as 7 June? Varsovian (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That appears to be original research and synthesis. Correct or not, you are the one drawing the conclusion that he is wrong. You need to find a reliable source that says this. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that he is wrong: I am saying that his statement contradicts historical records (i.e. Hansard) and media from the time (i.e. The Times). As the article says "Davies' statement regarding "the very eve of the parade" contradicts historical records and media from the time." Varsovian (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What reliable source already, before you, stated "Davies' statement regarding "the very eve of the parade" contradicts historical records and media from the time." or something similar? If you concluded that his statement contradicted historical records from your own interpretation of the dates and source material, but no one before you reached that conclusion, that is a novel synthesis of ideas. At wikipedia, editors should not reach their own conclusions based on availible data, as reaching your own conclusions is a form of original research. We may only present the conclusions which have already been reached and published previously in reliable sources. --Jayron32 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you consider the official journal of the British parliament to be a published reliable source? Do you consider The Times newspaper to be a published reliable source? Davies comment flatly contradicts the statements made in both. We are not talking about interpretation of dates, we are talking about certain verifiable statements verifiably made on certain verifiable dates. My understanding of WP:V is that anything likely to be challenged needs to have a WP:RS to support it. It is somewhat unlikely that anybody would want to challenge that 4 June came before 7 June, wouldn't you say? Varsovian (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Only that Davies does not flat contradics statements made in both, and in fact he does not even mention them. Having read all of those sources it is my opinion there is no contradiction. But anyway even if there would be such a thing as contradiction in those sources (and personally I'd say Davies is more reliable than a newspaper) then Wikipedia NPOV style requires you write: source X say this and this while source Y states this and this. Btw Varsovian I am asking you again about your edit warring as you seem to avoid that question. In case you think your edit warring is ok then you don't have to answer.  Dr. Loosmark  14:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it possible that “the faux pas was not corrected until the very eve of the parade" (as Davies claims) when multiple sources from the time (Hansard, The Times, the memories of General Anders, etc) all state that invitations were issued to Western Command Poles before “the very eve of the parade”? You may say that Davies is more reliable than a newspaper (although I’d point out that Davies has been known to be wrong even about the year that the parade took place) but is he more reliable than the man who was responsible for deciding who to invite or a man who actually received an invitation? Thank you very much for the invitation to discuss edit warring, given your block and warning log I’m sure that there is much I can learn from you about how to edit war properly. Varsovian (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me try restating my earlier remark: you are the one drawing the conclusion that he is contradicting other reports. You may be right, but you are the one who is stating this. You need to find a reliable source that says the same thing. Doing otherwise violates WP:SYNTH. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, the article currently states "He states that "the faux pas was not corrected until the very eve of the parade", when “in consequence, a last-minute invitation was sent by Foreign Minister Bevin directly to the Chief of Staff of the Polish Army, General Kopanski, who was still in post in London; and other invitations were sent to the chiefs of the Polish Air Force and the Polish Navy and to individual generals. The belated invitations were courteously declined.”[24] Four days before the parade Ernest Bevin, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wrote “His Majesty's Government still hope that it will also be possible for a party of Polish airmen who flew with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain to be included in the parade.” " Would it be permissible to insert the words "(i.e. three days before the very eve of the parade)"? The text would thus read "He states that "the faux pas was not corrected until the very eve of the parade", when “in consequence, a last-minute invitation was sent by Foreign Minister Bevin directly to the Chief of Staff of the Polish Army, General Kopanski, who was still in post in London; and other invitations were sent to the chiefs of the Polish Air Force and the Polish Navy and to individual generals. The belated invitations were courteously declined.”[24] Four days before the parade (i.e. three days before the very eve of the parade) Ernest Bevin, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wrote “His Majesty's Government still hope that it will also be possible for a party of Polish airmen who flew with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain to be included in the parade.” " This would very much draw attention the fact that what Davies says flatly contradicts by historical sources but it doesn't actually say that Davies' statement contradicts historical sources. Varsovian (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, this discussion needs to move to the talk page of the article in question. ANI is not the proper location to discuss content changes to articles. Please move this to Talk:London_Victory_Parade_of_1946 where anyone who wishes may comment on the proposed changes. Admins do not need to use their admin tools to make this happen. I would copy and past the above propsed changes to the talk page, let the discussion run for a few days to hammer out a consensus, and proceed from there. Admins don't need to protect, block, or delete anything right now, so I don't see where this discussion needs to happen here any further. --Jayron32 15:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron, unfortunately Varsovian has a long history of drawing original conclusions. See for example this edit from the talk page in March [96]. Mr.Moszynski is the person who wrote to the British government and about the lack of Polish participation in the battle. For some reason Varsovian disliked his statement and wrote on the talk page that he is a liar. Again not a single source was presented which would state that Mr.Moszynski's statement was untruthful . Ok it's the talk page but still, accusing a living person of being a liar is beyond appalling and it just shows that Varsovian just doesn't "get it". Above he seemed to have, once again, skillfully dodged the question of his edit warring and not following wikipedia policies by turning the debate into content discussions knowing that then admins will say go to the article talk page and discuss it.  Dr. Loosmark  15:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a single source? The letter which Moszynski claims is "an apology from Tony Blair regarding the British Government's failure to invite the Polish armed forces to the 1946 Victory Parade" is linked to at the article: it isn't from Tony Blair, it doesn't apologise for anything and makes no mention of any failure to invite anybody. Instead it expresses "regret that Polish contingents did not take part in the victory parade." Perhaps you would like to read what Moszynski claims (it is here [97]) and then contrast it with what the letter actually says (you can find that here [98]). Varsovian (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jauerback, this is precisely the kind of dialogue I have found difficult with Varsovian, long term. It seems like some kind of CHAFF. I want to ask for your objective and neutral opinion: Firstly, would this discussion be evidence to add to a case of WP:DE, or not? Varsovian removed the OR in an edit not long ago here [99], and is now quoting the new paragraph in this discussion with you. He did this edit, he added in dialogue with me above, to end the "wiki-drama". The reference to Wikidrama seems unhelpful here: a veteran editor has identified WP:TE, two editors have identified edit warring, two administrators have raised the WP:OR policy breach, and one is having to explain it more than once. To my mind the issue here isn't Wikidrama. It isn't this single case of WP:OR nor this single case of edit warring. It isn't even restricted to a single article, as JamesBWatson rightly says above. It is either a fundamental long term misunderstanding of Wikipedia, or else a long term WP:TE or even WP:DE problem. I took no pleasure nor satisfaction from launching this ANI. This was a last resort after a lot of grief. I don't like drama. I sincerely look forward to not having to go through this experience again. I look forward to your continued fairness, neutrality and commitment. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Evaluation

    As an administrator with a bit of experience in handling disputes in this topic area, I consider this request actionable for these reasons:

    For these reasons, I was about to impose a sanction under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions on Varsovian. However, since Varsovian has now self-reverted the problematic text, I believe that a warning is sufficient: If you, Varsovian, continue to fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (including the policies cited above), in the Eastern Europe topic area, you may be made subject to blocks, bans or other sanctions according to the cited arbitral remedy without further warning. I believe that this thread can now be closed unless the edit war flares up again.  Sandstein  16:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ecco Pro

    For quite some time I regularly visit Ecco Pro, only finding over and over again massive amounts of inappropriate linking in the article, with texts like:

    • '... with active community participation at the 'New' ECCO_Pro Yahoo! group, and the EccoMagic Forums.'
    • '... at the eccotools forums and in downloadable format form the files library of the 'new' Yahoo! Ecco_Pro group.' (sometimes the groups are working links to the forum)
    • 'NetManage premitted continued distribution of the final version as a free download at the official Ecco_Pro user group forum's file section.' (note: I don't think I ever saw a reference hanging on this sentence)
    • 'Perez has returned to practice as a criminal defense attorney in Bellevue, Washington<ref>http://www.robertperezlaw.com</ref>.' (I fail to see why this is notable, nor is this an independent reference)
    • '(SRP $59; sold direct by NetManage $9.99)' (I fail to see why pricing is so important here, similar articles don't list it, nor is it referenced.
    • 'Video guides for Ecco are available [104]'
    • reformatting 'InfoQube (fka SQLNotes)]' into 'InfoQube (fka SQLNotes)'

    And massive removals of proper references (de-reffing of e.g. 'ECCO competed in the PIM space against several formidable competitors<ref>PC Magazine, August 1997, pp. 222-223, 237</ref>.') and removal of citation needed tags.

    Most of these links don't comply with our manual of style, the language is promotional, and notability of many facts is not established. Furthermore, many of the editors keep reinstating information, not being able or willing to answer to questions of notability of the information, or having proper references for it.

    I know that there are two sides of editors, who strongly contradict each other. On one side the forum people (YSWT who is moderator on the forums), on the other side another editor who is involved in selling the software. I am uninvolved, though my involvement in one of the sides was claimed (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Mar_1#compusol.org

    These editors, on both sides, have been asked over and over to contribute more references, or independent references, but all they can come up with are their own COI references. I know that there are now some references which are certainly not the best, but that seems to be the best there is to offer. Nonetheless, the not-so-good references keep getting removed and replaced with the (worse) forum links.

    Today I noticed these two diffs:

    and a post on the talkpage:

    • Section-title: Please only make contested changes after establishing consensus
    • Text: As one of the 'everyone' who contributes to articles the hostility here dismays me. I am an attorney and I take the wikipedia's promise and representation that everyone can contribute to be very serious. I have carefully read the rules and guidelines and I suggest those with any special agenda do the same. 70.251.114.178 (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have re-reverted to a less spammy version, which I think conforms more with our policies and guidelines, and which has been generated with the help of other regular wikipedians.

    Some more independent help would be appreciated, as it seems to be time for lengthy blocks or protections, but I leave it to review here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me that the abuse is only coming from IPs. There is one registered account called User:EccoProMember but he's making an effort to follow policy. Though the total volume of bad edits is not large, it can be tedious for article-watchers of a lightly-trafficked article to keep going back month after month to remove similar stuff. I suggest six months of semiprotection, and will impose that unless this noticeboard thinks it's unwise. Linking to Warez has been discussed on the talk page, and the dispute on the talk page may eventually develop into something that requires further admin attention. (One of the IP participants happened to mention that he's an attorney, though not in a threatening way). Watchlisting by admins would help. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing practices of User:Mk5384

    Mk5384 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)
    John J. Pershing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Mk5384 has had quite a history on the John J. Pershing article and talk page over the issue of including the word "nigger" in the infobox. After getting nearly an indef block from Wikipedia over edit warring and disruption (see:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Pattern of Behavior of User:Mk5384), it looked as if Mk had turned over a new leaf and was ready to work with others. Several users worked together on that article and a compromise position was reached which everyone could live with.

    Mk was okay with this for a few days but then returned to start a new "proposal" stating that several users had agreed to another change (See: Talk:John J. Pershing#Proposal). Mk then began repeating the same arguments which had already been voiced and which had already been discussed during the compromise. In the end, MK "announced" that there was a "new consensus" and here is where the disruptive editing really begins (see: Talk:John J. Pershing#As of now). First, MK misrepresented the positions of two editors, stating that two users supported this new compromise when in fact the last recorded edit was that they supported the compromise version [105], [106]. One of the users even arrived to strike his name off of MK's "list" [107]. At this point, caught in a lie, MK quietly removed one user's name from the list [108] but left the others. Mk then declared that he had a "2-1 majority" and stated this new consensus would overturn the previous discussion. As a final act to top all of this off, MK committed a blatant personal attack by stating I could go and "Kiss Usama bin Laden's ass" [109] As a Gulf veteran, I find that extremely insulting which is what prompted me to post here.

    MK has effectively turned the John Pershing article talk page into a battlefield, adopted a strategy that if he repeats the same argument over and over, eventually those who oppose him will get tired and his views will come out on top. There is also the unresolved issue of a possible sockpuppet, being the sudden appearance of Kind Journalist which seems to be a single purpose account to support MKs views. MK went absolutely ballistic when I had a private conversation with User:Xeno about the possibility that this was an SP account but I never made formal charges since I didn't have the evidence. I also, ironically, didn't even use MKs name. Nevertheless, MK has filled Xeno's talk page with a very harsh thread, using terms like "this is horseshit", demanding an investigation (see:User talk:Xeno#New user on the JP Talk Page) and also has approached another admin as well [110] even though this never made it off Xeno's own page and no formal charges were ever filed. Nevertheless, MK states he has been "falsely accused" and wants a full investigation.

    In short, something needs to be done about MKs editing behavior as this has gone on long enough. The user is clearly not working with others, misrepresenting the views of other editors, and now committing personal attacks (i.e. "Kiss Usama bin Laden's" ass). A clear case of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and I ask something be done about this. -OberRanks (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is utter nonsense, and I have no plans to adress it futrher. This all began when OberRanks made false accusations of sockpuppetry against me on Xeno's talkpage. When he learned of my intentions to take action against him, he resumed his childish nonsense, as can be seen by his two trips here in as many days.As for mediation, whilst I won't rule it out, I can no longer assume good faith with OberRanks, after what he wrote on your talk page, and his latest triva here.Mk5384 (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators may also wish to review this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_Warring_on_Talk:John_J._Pershing and this posting [112]. -OberRanks (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK; I'll bite. I'll AGF here, and assume OberRanks' cluelessness is genuine, and he's not just pretending to be stupid. I never told him to "go kiss Usama bin Laden's ass". What I said, was, that if Usama bin Laden came to the Pershing talk page, and supported the exclusion of "Nigger Jack", OberRanks would run to kiss his ass. Big difference, but again, I'll assume OberRanks is genuinely confused. That was, of course, in reference to OberRanks immediately throwing his support behind anyone whom he thinks supports his version of how the article should be. OberRanks didn't even realize that the user in question supports the nickname that he hates so much.Mk5384 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also,after taking the time to actually read his drivel in its entirety, no, I was not caught in a lie, nor did I "quietly" do anything. The user struck his name, and, as I was the one who posted it, I summarily removed it. Also, the user in question's support for "Nigger Jack" can be found all over the talk page. They have obviously changed their mind, which is absolutely fine. But again, I have a hard time believing that OberRanks truly doesn't understand all of these things, and is making these posts in good faith. Again, as I have said, he got caught on Xeno's talk page with his SP BS, and has been making these premptive strikes ever since, in an attempt to cover his own ass.Mk5384 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I'm not too concerned with whether that name is in the article or not. The entire point here is that MK has engaged in misrepresentation of other editors and has engaged in personal attacks. And, for the record, I am not sure who Kind Journalist is; all I know is it appears to be a single purpose account, controlled by whom is an unknown factor, but its appearance on the article, and then counted as a "vote", is very questionable. I will also say there is a recurring theme here - nothing is ever MKs fault, he is never the one who is edit warring, it is always other people and other people are always to blame. That is my concern here and I turn this over to the administrators for any action that they see fit. -OberRanks (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC is an excellent idea. I wish to reiterate that everything had been fine. All of us were working together in a manner most civil to resolve our differences, until OR made his false accusations. Instead of simply apologising, he decided to take the low road, insisting that he had done no wrong, whilst resuming his daily trips here to report me for some imaginary infraction.Mk5384 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mk5384 has been obsessed with this one item for some time now, including personal attacks and also a false claim of "censorship" - all of which was probably noted in the previous ANI thread. He keeps trying to conduct new polls within the talk page in hopes of building "consensus" for forcing the N-word into the infobox, when this detail is already covered in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true at all. I have almost 2000 edits, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with John Pershing. Bugs himself has made personal attacks on the talk page, and the claim of censorship is not at all false. Some users, such as Bugs, are hiding behind the fact that the name is used in the article to bolster support for censoring the info box, whilst claiming that censorship is not at play.Mk5384 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so you have nothing whatsoever to lose from dropping the stick and walking away, which I hope you will now do. I think everybody else is sick to the back teeth of this, and as far as I can see most people (read: everyone but you) seems to consider the current coverage in the article to be no problem at all. It's time to move on, you are not making yourself look good. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy

    These editors are attempting to use autobiographical writings by one of the main subjects of this article, Arthur Jensen, to write a severly biased version of a period in the 1970s. This is well recorded in secondary sources, which are published mostly by university presses. Captain Occam has given spurious reasons for removing material by Adrian Wooldridge, because it is 4 pages long and therefore too short. The views of these editors favour a minoritarian point of view and contradict what most historians of psychology, eg Franz Samelson, have written about Jensen's varying point of view over the years. Please could adminitsrators step in to sort out this tag-teaming and disruption on what was a neutral article. Captain Occam , by editng as part of a team, is attempting to impose a heavily biased and unacceptable version by force of numbers, in this case several WP:SPAs. I did suggest that they could write a separate section Jensen on "Jensenism" to include these autobiographical views, provided it was clearly labelled as such and separate from the history written relying on solid secondary sources and not written by the subject of the history himself. Captain Occam's finger was fast on the revert button. Note that he has been blocked three times before for revert warring on Race and intelligence. I would also note that the point of view of the tag-team on the sources seems similar to that of a review in The Occidental Quarterly. This looks like very agressive POV-pushing based on numbers, rather than arguments based on the readings of WP:RS. Possibly Captain Occam should be blocked. My temporary wifi link will unfortunately not permit me either to inform the above editors or to respond in the near future, Apologies about that. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think I should point out that Mathsci has another currently open AN/I complaint about this same issue here. The linked thread is a request that I be banned for tag-team editing on the same about which he's making his current accusations. Aren't we supposed to avoid multiple simultaneous AN/I threads about the same issue? At the very least what Mathsci is doing here is forum shopping, and having two simultaneously open AN/I complaints about the same issue might be a violation of other policies also. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • MathSci claims that books written by Jensen may not be used in an article that mentions Jensen. He claims that this is Wikipedia policy but fails to specifically cite any such wording. If writings by Ghandi may be used in the article about Ghandi, then writings by Jensen may be used in an article that mentions Jensen. (They do not have to be used and we need to evaluate them in the context of other sources.) Or am I missing something? David.Kane (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, obviously. The issue: Is there a general Wikipedia policy against using work written by person X in an article that touches on person X? MathSci asserts that there is, that in the paragraph or two in this article which discusses Jensen, we may not use work written by Jensen. But there is no such policy. MathSci is just making things up, hoping to bully people into getting his way. Could an experienced administrator at least tell us if there is anything wrong with the article on Ghandi using Ghandi's autobiography as a source? David.Kane (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mediation already failed as the mediator lost buy-in from one of the parties and then, as opposed to reengaging the party by determining their problems and adressing them, instead barrelled through mediation without that parties input. Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Around two weeks ago, we finished a five-month-long mediation case for the main Race and intelligence article, which also covered the way we’d be describing this controversy’s history. Our mediator was user:Ludwigs2. Mathsci refused to participate in the mediation for most of the time that it was underway, despite multiple attempts from Ludwigs2 to engage him in it, instead posting multiple AN/I threads trying to get Ludwig banned for allegedly mishandling the mediation case. Mathsci also refused to accept the outcome we agreed on during mediation after the mediation case was finished, which is what’s causing the current conflict. Since he voluntarily excluded himself from the first mediation case and refused to accept its results, I don’t think a second mediation case is likely to solve this. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Then off to the arbitration committee! If it's been going on for that long and it's still not going away I can't see any other way to solve it. Unless Mathsci was willing to engage in some sort of talks with other editors. I'd like to see some evidence from them for the accusations of sock puppetry too, because if that is happening, that should be addressed. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Schildt

    Can someone please take a look at the IP editors of the AfD page? They all seem to be from the same user, and they all seem to be socks belonging to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spinoza1111. User:Spinoza1111 is currently blocked. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User informed at the last IP used: [113]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Large amount of copyvio images uploaded by User:Zupfk

    Most (or all) of User:Zupfk's image uploads are copyvios (File:Luchin in 2010.jpg from [114], for example). I'd appreciate if an administrator could save me some time and delete them. Theleftorium 15:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nuked. Rettetast (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Theleftorium 16:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse of process when citing a page for deletion

    I am not sure if this is the correct place to raise this matter, but I would like some other pairs of eyes to look at this. The user User:TreasuryTag has a problem with an image which they keep citing for deletion. It is a TV screenshot, and so uses the {{Non-free television screenshot}} license. After I had fixed some some minor problems with the license, the user:

    1. Cited the image for deletion using {{ifd}}[115]
    2. Deleted the image from the article [116]
    3. Immediately cited the image for deletion using {{di-orphaned fair use}}[117]

    These actions were all completed within three minutes. The user seems to have declared themselves prosecuting councel, judge, and jury. This has got to be wrong.

    I tried to discuss the user's previous attempt to delete this same image on their Talk page, here]. Since the user is now leaving silly messages on my Talk page[118][119], I can't face discussing their latest actions with them.

    To me, this user seems out of control. As I said above, I would like some other pairs of eyes to look at this. HairyWombat (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The image is a clear copyright violation, having no possible justification under our fair-use policies, and has been nominated for deletion where the community can discuss it freely. I am not aware of any "silly" behaviour on my part, and my messages on Wombat's talkpage were friendly yet firm, since s/he seems to misunderstand our civility policy. However, as always, I welcome scrutiny. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 16:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No opinion on the fair use claim. But you cannot remove an image from an article and then claim it's an orphan. Neither is it ok to take an image to IfD and trying to get it speedied via the orphan tag. If you think this needs consensus, IfD is the right way. If you think the image violates copyright, hash it out on the talk page of the article before deleting it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Which policy specifies what you've just said? Because WP:3RR seems to champion the immediate removal from articles of "clear copyright violations" even if discussion is underway in a separate venue. (At least that's what I think it means?) ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Those messages on the wombat's talk page don't seem silly to me. If you can't face discussing their latest actions with them, then stop editing. We operate on discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'm genuinely unsure if that's what he meant to describe as "silly", because they really aren't... And sorry, if who can't face discussion...? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=358439077"